Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Time for a summary:

1. This is about a very minor tactical issue that doesn’t have any great significance to the game. It’s only a 30% combat modifier. If you rank all the terrain combat modifiers from top to bottom, this one would rank DEAD LAST. And that’s just a mathematical fact. And it isn’t as if it isn’t being applied. It is. The issue is just over exactly where it’s applied. It’s about as minor an issue as you can get.

quote:

2. Any fix to one part of the river model breaks another part. Rivers have both boundary and area properties.

quote:

Switch to hexside from hex and the area factors (like transverse defensive benefits) are unmodeled.

quote:

In other words, for every plus of hexside rivers, there is a corresponding minus. Even if this change could somehow magically be applied to every existing scenario, the net benefit would be about zilch.

quote:

3. But here’s the killer: It won’t be applied to ANY existing scenario! No scenario has hexside rivers. And there will be few designers who will go to all the effort to rip out the river hexes and replace them with hexside rivers in their maps, even among the few who still support their scenarios. The actual net benefit will be something like zilch times zilch! (Zilch-squared!!!)

quote:

Add it all up and the idea of implementing this change becomes monstrously ludicrous. The whole subject wasn’t worth two sentences. Yet it already has had page after page of repetitive, long-winded, incoherent, incomprehensible blather devoted to it. Enough!

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Of the ones above, I can see a possible need for "C" but adding in the British equivalent of the Maus or something strikes me as a minor improvement. Which historical scenarios benefitted from "B", for example?

Well for example, my version of Europe Aflame provides equipment for the French after 1940 which was actually planned to go into production 1941-2.

My Poland scenario would play very differently without e).

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Of the ones above, I can see a possible need for "C" but adding in the British equivalent of the Maus or something strikes me as a minor improvement. Which historical scenarios benefitted from "B", for example?

Well for example, my version of Europe Aflame provides equipment for the French after 1940 which was actually planned to go into production 1941-2.

My Poland scenario would play very differently without e).

I don't disupte anything you're saying, I am just saying that being questioned on the grounds of whether something is worth it when the opposition are deploying as argument all sorts of sometimes very minor equipment additions in the midst of a game set squarely in the operational domain is as irritating to me as I clearly am being to you (and if not you certainly others).

In other words, the guts of this game are whether it does the Western and Eastern fronts & maybe the Med in an operational context. Everything else is nice, I concede, but you need the basics first. Basics include simulating terrain correctly. Fire in the East is a good example. Very popular scenario and the way most people (I guess) play it puts a huge premium on the river rules since Soviet players early war and German players late war will all trade a little space to anchor along some water.

Fundamentally altering the river rules (I would argue correcting) is not minor in terms of the way this scenario or DNO or Gotteramadung or Hells highway would be played. Throw in the Bulge and you have pretty much wrapped up all the big stuff that most people play most often.

I work as a Business Analyst, I am far from blind about issues of cost-benefits, but we only got WWII equipment in the first place because of the storm over the Jeep Army Vs King Tiger platoon debate and as I keep repeating, this is an operational level game, a level at which equipment is not as important as simulating the operational level decisions Commanders face correctly. The current rules don't allow that with rivers IMHO.

Put another way, if there were no defensive benefits to units in urban terrain, we would be fixing it.

I guess we're running out of patience for this debate so I apologise if I gave any offence, but having intervened for the first time in issues like this, I guess I'll return to the back benches. I have firm (if generally quiet) ideas about where this should all go given Combined Arms will (I believe) take the minor operational/major tactical end within 12 months with WEGO and river hex sides and the WIR crowd will get the entire eastern front at 10Km per hex within 2 years with a host of new features. TOAW needs (IMHO) to zero in on what is required to improve the operational aspects since its flexibility at the operational level is its real advantage and where it would continue to carve out its niche.

In other words, focus in on what your real objective is. It isn't to get all sub variants of the Fiesler Storch into the game, together with a couple of proposed ones where they were going to add 37 mm cannon in 1948, but to make TOAW popular and playable for the market ten years from now. The requirements for that are not marginal but fun toys for designers, or people defending toys for scenario designers, but accurate, vibrant operational rules.

TOAW is an operational game in which equipment is (I would contend) a very minor and secondary consideration. I guess I ultimately just got galled at seeing operational considerations compared unfavourably with beached battleships and armoured barges in a game that is not about T34s and Panthers, much less boats. If that spilled over into unwarranted words, then I apologise (even if no one else does). However, those that control and those that design seem to disagree with me so I'm only making enemies sticking around. Be careful not to win yourselves to death, though, with your equipment editor .

All the very best,
IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

I don't disupte anything you're saying, I am just saying that being questioned on the grounds of whether something is worth it when the opposition are deploying as argument all sorts of sometimes very minor equipment additions in the midst of a game set squarely in the operational domain is as irritating to me as I clearly am being to you (and if not you certainly others).

In other words, the guts of this game are whether it does the Western and Eastern fronts & maybe the Med in an operational context.

quote:

Everything else is nice, I concede, but you need the basics first. Basics include simulating terrain correctly. Fire in the East is a good example. Very popular scenario and the way most people (I guess) play it puts a huge premium on the river rules since Soviet players early war and German players late war will all trade a little space to anchor along some water.

quote:

TOAW is an operational game in which equipment is (I would contend) a very minor and secondary consideration.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
Rivers along hexsides allow units to assume two basic states. The first is that of a solid, and coherent defense, which is always in effect, when neither force is actively attacking across the river. The second is that of an attacking force, which is only in effect for a very brief, and discrete amount of time. This is the point in time when a game will usually penalize the actively attacking force.

The reason that TOAW will continue to model rivers in hexes, instead of as hexsides, is that this allows an additional state, or operational condition, that units may assume beyond that of what is allowed by hexside rivers. That of a shallow bridgehead. The cost, or trade-off, here is a simple spatial distortion that, absent battle, is no better or worse than that caused by forcing rivers to run along hexsides.

A shallow bridgehead does not allow for units to maneuver well and, given the general nature of river valleys, will also represent, due to elevation, a tactical advantage to those opposing forces not on a river hex. Thus the 70% reduction in firepower that affects the attacking units. Now, to be consistent, I believe that this penalty should apply to all forces on river hexes, regardless of whether they are attacking, or defending. I will try to get Ralph to code that effect for the next patch. This will also clear up inconsistencies when attacking and defending units are both on river hexes. Both sides will be equally constrained and affected.

Why does such an additional state need to be present in TOAW? This is because attackers crossing a river, attacking from a river, defending a narrow bridgehead, should be in a more vulnerable state (at least potentially) at some point in time during the turn. If the "turn" ends, (local/global initiative shifts) before a bridgehead is established deeply enough to be safe from local counterattacks, then the game needs to have the forces that are, in essence, straddling the river, or packed into a confined area, be vulnerable to enemy action - while it is still in this disorganized or operationally weakened state. Thus, if a player can replicate a quick, decisive and effective breakthrough at the point of crossing, a la Sedan, then by the time the enemy can react, the bridgehead is already established some non-zero number of hexes deep, and away from the river. The bridgehead has been successfully forced, and is more relatively safe from any counterattacks that might follow. If the player fumbles, bumbles and stumbles in the face of the enemy resistance, a la Fredricksburg, then the bridgehead is too narrow for the forces across to take advantage of maneuver, they are working up river banks, the bridging or ferry assets are under fire, and the units are in a vulnerable state, such that continued actions against it and the forces within it have a relative advantage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
Rivers along hexsides allow units to assume two basic states. The first is that of a solid, and coherent defense, which is always in effect, when neither force is actively attacking across the river. The second is that of an attacking force, which is only in effect for a very brief, and discrete amount of time. This is the point in time when a game will usually penalize the actively attacking force.

The reason that TOAW will continue to model rivers in hexes, instead of as hexsides, is that this allows an additional state, or operational condition, that units may assume beyond that of what is allowed by hexside rivers. That of a shallow bridgehead. The cost, or trade-off, here is a simple spatial distortion that, absent battle, is no better or worse than that caused by forcing rivers to run along hexsides.

A shallow bridgehead does not allow for units to maneuver well and, given the general nature of river valleys, will also represent, due to elevation, a tactical advantage to those opposing forces not on a river hex. Thus the 70% reduction in firepower that affects the attacking units. Now, to be consistent, I believe that this penalty should apply to all forces on river hexes, regardless of whether they are attacking, or defending. I will try to get Ralph to code that effect for the next patch. This will also clear up inconsistencies when attacking and defending units are both on river hexes. Both sides will be equally constrained and affected.

Why does such an additional state need to be present in TOAW? This is because attackers crossing a river, attacking from a river, defending a narrow bridgehead, should be in a more vulnerable state (at least potentially) at some point in time during the turn. If the "turn" ends, (local/global initiative shifts) before a bridgehead is established deeply enough to be safe from local counterattacks, then the game needs to have the forces that are, in essence, straddling the river, or packed into a confined area, be vulnerable to enemy action - while it is still in this disorganized or operationally weakened state. Thus, if a player can replicate a quick, decisive and effective breakthrough at the point of crossing, a la Sedan, then by the time the enemy can react, the bridgehead is already established some non-zero number of hexes deep, and away from the river. The bridgehead has been successfully forced, and is more relatively safe from any counterattacks that might follow. If the player fumbles, bumbles and stumbles in the face of the enemy resistance, a la Fredricksburg, then the bridgehead is too narrow for the forces across to take advantage of maneuver, they are working up river banks, the bridging or ferry assets are under fire, and the units are in a vulnerable state, such that continued actions against it and the forces within it have a relative advantage.

Now that we seem to have averted what would undoubtedly have been the “Great Hexside River Fiasco of 2007” we can now turn our attention to the far more sensible task of improving river hexes.

I think James is on to some part of the issue above, but it’s more complicated than that. Yes, an initial bridgehead over a river can be a vulnerable target, deserving of a defensive penalty. But, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, inside the river hex the river snakes around, and where the units in that hex are deployed relative to that river is unknown. They may be mostly across the river, as above, in which case they’re vulnerable and deserve a defensive penalty. They may be partly across and partly behind, in which case the benefits and penalties more or less cancel, resulting in a wash (that’s how it works now). Or they may be mostly or entirely behind the river, in which case they should be getting a defensive benefit. But how can we tell?

I now think it’s possible to do so, via the context of how the hex was captured:

Case 1: The river hex began the last friendly player turn friendly controlled. This is the pure defensive context. The units should be assumed to be employing as much defensive use of the river as possible. As such, any friendly units in the hex will enjoy the defensive river benefit (if attacked, those attackers suffer the 0.7 modifier). If the units attack out of the hex, they also suffer the 0.7 attack modifier (this case is like what I suggested much further back).

Case 2: The river hex began the last friendly player turn enemy controlled, and was captured by any of the following:
1. Movement.
2. Overrun.
3. An assault against enemy units in the river hex NOT enjoying the defensive river benefit (in other words, a counterattack against enemy units that captured the hex in the last enemy player turn.)
This is the mixed context. The units in the hex should be assumed to be partly exposed and partly protected. There is no defensive penalty or benefit. If the units attack out of the hex, they suffer the 0.7 attack modifier (this case is like the way it works now).

Case 3: The river hex began the last friendly player turn enemy controlled, and was captured by an assault against enemy units in the river hex that WERE enjoying the defensive river benefit (as in case 1 above). This is the major assault context. The units in the hex should be assumed to be fully exposed. They suffer the defensive penalty if attacked in the next enemy player turn (this case is like in James’ post above). BUT, if the units continue their attack out of the hex that same player-turn against any hex that doesn't qualify for Case 1, they do NOT suffer the 0.7 attack modifier (they’re already across – we don’t want the penalty to be paid twice).

It’s complicated, but it’s code only – no graphics – and it will affect all existing scenarios. Note that Case 1 simplifies defensive tactics and allows bridges to be defended – just deploy on the river hex.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Of the ones above, I can see a possible need for "C" but adding in the British equivalent of the Maus or something strikes me as a minor improvement. Which historical scenarios benefitted from "B", for example?

Well for example, my version of Europe Aflame provides equipment for the French after 1940 which was actually planned to go into production 1941-2.

My Poland scenario would play very differently without e).

I don't disupte anything you're saying, I am just saying that being questioned on the grounds of whether something is worth it when the opposition are deploying as argument all sorts of sometimes very minor equipment additions in the midst of a game set squarely in the operational domain is as irritating to me as I clearly am being to you (and if not you certainly others).

In other words, the guts of this game are whether it does the Western and Eastern fronts & maybe the Med in an operational context. Everything else is nice, I concede, but you need the basics first. Basics include simulating terrain correctly. Fire in the East is a good example. Very popular scenario and the way most people (I guess) play it puts a huge premium on the river rules since Soviet players early war and German players late war will all trade a little space to anchor along some water.

Fundamentally altering the river rules (I would argue correcting) is not minor in terms of the way this scenario or DNO or Gotteramadung or Hells highway would be played. Throw in the Bulge and you have pretty much wrapped up all the big stuff that most people play most often.

I work as a Business Analyst, I am far from blind about issues of cost-benefits, but we only got WWII equipment in the first place because of the storm over the Jeep Army Vs King Tiger platoon debate and as I keep repeating, this is an operational level game, a level at which equipment is not as important as simulating the operational level decisions Commanders face correctly. The current rules don't allow that with rivers IMHO.

Put another way, if there were no defensive benefits to units in urban terrain, we would be fixing it.

I guess we're running out of patience for this debate so I apologise if I gave any offence, but having intervened for the first time in issues like this, I guess I'll return to the back benches. I have firm (if generally quiet) ideas about where this should all go given Combined Arms will (I believe) take the minor operational/major tactical end within 12 months with WEGO and river hex sides and the WIR crowd will get the entire eastern front at 10Km per hex within 2 years with a host of new features. TOAW needs (IMHO) to zero in on what is required to improve the operational aspects since its flexibility at the operational level is its real advantage and where it would continue to carve out its niche.

In other words, focus in on what your real objective is. It isn't to get all sub variants of the Fiesler Storch into the game, together with a couple of proposed ones where they were going to add 37 mm cannon in 1948, but to make TOAW popular and playable for the market ten years from now. The requirements for that are not marginal but fun toys for designers, or people defending toys for scenario designers, but accurate, vibrant operational rules.

TOAW is an operational game in which equipment is (I would contend) a very minor and secondary consideration. I guess I ultimately just got galled at seeing operational considerations compared unfavourably with beached battleships and armoured barges in a game that is not about T34s and Panthers, much less boats. If that spilled over into unwarranted words, then I apologise (even if no one else does). However, those that control and those that design seem to disagree with me so I'm only making enemies sticking around. Be careful not to win yourselves to death, though, with your equipment editor .

All the very best,
IronDuke

You either fail to grasp or choose not to admit just how much it is possible to accomplish by editing equipment.

Put it this way. I have used my moving van to park in downtown loading zones and go to a movie. Instant free parking! Is that all my moving van is good for? No.

Your argument -- such as it is -- amounts to showing that free parking isn't all that great a benefit and so my moving van's not much of an asset. Inasmuch as I also happen to make my living with it, I'm not exactly impressed by your argument.

So what if a Fieseler Storch would be a trivial addition? That's hardly the limit of what it is possible to do with the equipment editor. Nor is the fact that we already have the equipment editor somehow an argument for going over to hexside rivers. That part of your argument sounds as if having established that I have a moving van, you feel you've come up with a compelling argument that I should start speculating on commodities futures. Never mind that I would have to learn a lot and that I happen to think it would be a poor idea -- I have to do it. I've already got a moving van, so I have to buy commodities futures. That would appear to be your reasoning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

I don't disupte anything you're saying, I am just saying that being questioned on the grounds of whether something is worth it when the opposition are deploying as argument all sorts of sometimes very minor equipment additions in the midst of a game set squarely in the operational domain is as irritating to me as I clearly am being to you (and if not you certainly others).

In other words, the guts of this game are whether it does the Western and Eastern fronts & maybe the Med in an operational context.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden deliciousOK.
If you don't have an equipment editor, how do you stop Western units getting flooded with Russian squads? How do you simulate the British manpower shortage which was critical in 1944, whilst leaving the Americans flush with troops?

You can only fudge it by using different squad types. But Russians weren't really "light rifle squads"- not for the whole damned war. Nor where American squads all bristling with firepower as will be the case if you give them heavy rifle squads.

This is just the biggest example of the problem. There are nuances within nuances.

quote:

Everything else is nice, I concede, but you need the basics first. Basics include simulating terrain correctly. Fire in the East is a good example. Very popular scenario and the way most people (I guess) play it puts a huge premium on the river rules since Soviet players early war and German players late war will all trade a little space to anchor along some water.

quote:

Right. Doesn't this demonstrate that rivers already function very effectively as military obstacles under the current system?

quote:

TOAW is an operational game in which equipment is (I would contend) a very minor and secondary consideration.

quote:

You're probably right here. A lot of players obsess about their special units almost as much as Hitler did. However adding minor new types of equipment I would consider to be one of the subsidiary benefits of the equipment editor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Now that we seem to have averted what would undoubtedly have been the “Great Hexside River Fiasco of 2007” we can now turn our attention to the far more sensible task of improving river hexes.

I think James is on to some part of the issue above, but it’s more complicated than that. Yes, an initial bridgehead over a river can be a vulnerable target, deserving of a defensive penalty. But, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, inside the river hex the river snakes around, and where the units in that hex are deployed relative to that river is unknown. They may be mostly across the river, as above, in which case they’re vulnerable and deserve a defensive penalty. They may be partly across and partly behind, in which case the benefits and penalties more or less cancel, resulting in a wash (that’s how it works now). Or they may be mostly or entirely behind the river, in which case they should be getting a defensive benefit. But how can we tell?

I now think it’s possible to do so, via the context of how the hex was captured:

Case 1: The river hex began the last friendly player turn friendly controlled. This is the pure defensive context. The units should be assumed to be employing as much defensive use of the river as possible. As such, any friendly units in the hex will enjoy the defensive river benefit (if attacked, those attackers suffer the 0.7 modifier). If the units attack out of the hex, they also suffer the 0.7 attack modifier (this case is like what I suggested much further back).

Case 2: The river hex began the last friendly player turn enemy controlled, and was captured by any of the following:
1. Movement.
2. Overrun.
3. An assault against enemy units in the river hex NOT enjoying the defensive river benefit (in other words, a counterattack against enemy units that captured the hex in the last enemy player turn.)
This is the mixed context. The units in the hex should be assumed to be partly exposed and partly protected. There is no defensive penalty or benefit. If the units attack out of the hex, they suffer the 0.7 attack modifier (this case is like the way it works now).

Case 3: The river hex began the last friendly player turn enemy controlled, and was captured by an assault against enemy units in the river hex that WERE enjoying the defensive river benefit (as in case 1 above). This is the major assault context. The units in the hex should be assumed to be fully exposed. They suffer the defensive penalty if attacked in the next enemy player turn (this case is like in James’ post above). BUT, if the units continue their attack out of the hex that same player-turn against any hex that doesn't qualify for Case 1, they do NOT suffer the 0.7 attack modifier (they’re already across – we don’t want the penalty to be paid twice).

It’s complicated, but it’s code only – no graphics – and it will affect all existing scenarios. Note that Case 1 simplifies defensive tactics and allows bridges to be defended – just deploy on the river hex.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


...sounds unnecessarily obscure. Really, we could find similar problems with all kinds of terrain. Take hills overlooked by mountains -- the defender gains an advantage by being in that position? I could go on, too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


...sounds unnecessarily obscure. Really, we could find similar problems with all kinds of terrain. Take hills overlooked by mountains -- the defender gains an advantage by being in that position? I could go on, too.

Disagree. I like Bob's idea.

The advantage the defender gets is already that of the mountain terrain's defensive benefits. Of course the defender can oversee the lower terrain, but at 10km/hex? Or at 15? There are always valleys or lower ground in the hilly terrain where one is safe from enemy observation. Or forests.. Whereas in a river hex there are not always many bridges..

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

However, you could argue you could present a case hereabouts for "Rifle Squads B" and "Rifle Squads" and have it patched.

quote:

Yes, but then we're not about simulating things as difficult or really difficult, but simulating them correctly. The question is do they work as they should IRL, which is where I'd say no.

quote:

This has been my impression. To be fair, you have an issue needing solving, but much else that I have seen hasn't really lit any fireworks with me. The current discussion in Bioed HQ about designing more Naval units is a good case in point. The game doesn't do Navy so having "accurate to the relevant refit" Destroyers strikes me as only marginally more relevant to scenarios than simulating concert parties and Bob Hope in theatre tours would be.

quote:

What scenario is so large in scope, you're simulating both Russian, British and American squads? What is the scale?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Yeah -- but at 5 km or 2.5 km? I was working on Seelowe. Being dug in on a range of 300 meter-high hills is not an advantage if the attacker is looking down on you from a 1000-meter high ridge a few kilometers away -- with no low ground between you and him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


...sounds unnecessarily obscure. Really, we could find similar problems with all kinds of terrain. Take hills overlooked by mountains -- the defender gains an advantage by being in that position? I could go on, too.

Disagree. I like Bob's idea.

The advantage the defender gets is already that of the mountain terrain's defensive benefits. Of course the defender can oversee the lower terrain, but at 10km/hex? Or at 15? There are always valleys or lower ground in the hilly terrain where one is safe from enemy observation. Or forests.. Whereas in a river hex there are not always many bridges..

Yeah -- but at 5 km or 2.5 km? I was working on Seelowe. Being dug in on a range of 300 meter-high hills is not an advantage if the attacker is looking down on you from a 1000-meter high ridge a few kilometers away -- with no low ground between you and him.

The point is that there are all kinds of problems with the terrain in the game -- the above is just a random example. To fixate on rivers as 'the problem' is mildly absurd. The rivers actually work relatively well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

In other words, focus in on what your real objective is. It isn't to get all sub variants of the Fiesler Storch into the game,
All the very best,
IronDuke

.

..easy, helicopter, active defender, 1 AP, 0 AT, recon..

..so much easier than all that tiresome flying from airfield to airfield stuff..


_____________________________

..toodA, irmAb moAs'lyB 'exper'mentin'..,..beàn'tus all..?,

(in reply to ColinWright)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
As of now, I know how a river hex works -- and I don't have any major issues with how it works. I don't particularly want to have to be trying to work out just who gained control of it how and calculating what that means the implications are for my attack. I want to see a river hex and know enough just by that.

quote:

As for the disadvantages of holding a bridge -- well, keeping a bridgehead open is hard. You want the defensive benefits of the river, you lose the offensive potential a bridgehead offers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
Very complicated for the User (who after all is what we are all about) but a far better option (I happily concede) than flawed mechanics. I also agree with the rules and the logic and particularly like the way it sorts out the defence of bridges and river crossings (which would get a benefit if I understand this when the attacking units incurred a penalty) and brings all the missing territory into play.

quote:

Therefore, if you were going with this, I'd urge a switch within advanced game options to turn it on and off.

quote:

That said, a compromise I'd be very comfortable with. Are super river hexes exempt, or would we allow movement on them, but not allow movement across them without ferry assets.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Yeah -- but at 5 km or 2.5 km? I was working on Seelowe. Being dug in on a range of 300 meter-high hills is not an advantage if the attacker is looking down on you from a 1000-meter high ridge a few kilometers away -- with no low ground between you and him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


...sounds unnecessarily obscure. Really, we could find similar problems with all kinds of terrain. Take hills overlooked by mountains -- the defender gains an advantage by being in that position? I could go on, too.

Disagree. I like Bob's idea.

The advantage the defender gets is already that of the mountain terrain's defensive benefits. Of course the defender can oversee the lower terrain, but at 10km/hex? Or at 15? There are always valleys or lower ground in the hilly terrain where one is safe from enemy observation. Or forests.. Whereas in a river hex there are not always many bridges..

Yeah -- but at 5 km or 2.5 km? I was working on Seelowe. Being dug in on a range of 300 meter-high hills is not an advantage if the attacker is looking down on you from a 1000-meter high ridge a few kilometers away -- with no low ground between you and him.

The point is that there are all kinds of problems with the terrain in the game -- the above is just a random example. To fixate on rivers as 'the problem' is mildly absurd. The rivers actually work relatively well.

If you want ultimate realism in such tactical situations you're better off with the AA series.. With toaw providing such a flexibility and variety of scales and periods one has to live with a certain degree of abstraction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Yeah -- but at 5 km or 2.5 km? I was working on Seelowe. Being dug in on a range of 300 meter-high hills is not an advantage if the attacker is looking down on you from a 1000-meter high ridge a few kilometers away -- with no low ground between you and him.

We currently have a feature that increases the weight of an artillery unit's fire if it is firing down a major escarpment. That could be employed for that case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

In country, out of the www for only a few days and I come home to find several new pages of debate that seem to be predicated upon the idea that massive (massive isn’t my word, it was first used by someone else) reprogramming of TOAW is required in order to incorporate hex side rivers. I read that neither TOAW III nor IV is scheduled for such a feature. I read that the TOAD team is of the opinion that people who desire certain features are crying like babies. I read about people declaring other people’s thoughts as “irrelevant” . . . doesn’t sound like the debate I participated in just a week ago.

This thread has evidently strayed far from the original intent. Or, at least, what I thought was the original intent. That was to discuss/debate the merits of hex side rivers as opposed to Koger rivers. This debate was to be in the context of a “Wish List” item. Emphasis on “wish”. The debaters in favor of the existing Koger river system appear to understand this as an attempt to perform an overhaul of the current code and replace it with an evolutionary code. This is simple not the case. Far as I know there has never been an intent, or suggestion, to replace the existing TOAW system with a new TOAW system. However, this seems to be the interpretation some people have given to the wish for hex side rivers and constructed their arguments accordingly.

Kids, it’s just a wish. Please consider it as such and make you responses in that context. The ultimate wish is that some day there will be a companion to TOAW that has all the realism, flexibility and functionality as TOAW, but with hex side rivers and WEGO. I see no reason why there cannot be two TOAD teams, exchanging information and improving their products cooperatively for the gaming community. This may not be currently on the Matrix drawing boards, but I think there may be a war game on the horizon that will force TOAW to consider these changes.

I made this prediction a couple of years ago, and I stick to it. That is:

When Combined Arms is published (WEGO, hex side rivers, editable scenarios, battalion level combat, Matrix support), the TOAW forums will go silent as war game enthusiasts quickly migrate to a new, and better, game system.

Of course the die hards of the TOAW community took issue with my prediction, but that is to be expected. I still stand by my prediction . . . I just need for Combined Arms to be published!!

Regards, RhinoBones

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

When Combined Arms is published (WEGO, hex side rivers, editable scenarios, battalion level combat, Matrix support), the TOAW forums will go silent as war game enthusiasts quickly migrate to a new, and better, game system. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

When Combined Arms is published (WEGO, hex side rivers, editable scenarios, battalion level combat, Matrix support), the TOAW forums will go silent as war game enthusiasts quickly migrate to a new, and better, game system.

I'm sure Combined Arms is a fine system. However, it doesn't compete with TOAW because the scales are different. And then there's the question of the first word in your above quote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

GD, it will definitely be the competitor to Toaw. No matter the scales and such.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
WEGO may remove a lot of the unrealistic occurences in TOAW, ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Real forces operate both simultaneously AND sentiently. WEGO gets the simultaneous part right but the sentient part wrong. IGOUGO gets the sentient part right and the simultaneous part wrong.

quote:

TOAW is just too flexible. Scenarios can have huge movement allowances.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

And inject more. It is no panacea.

Real forces operate both simultaneously AND sentiently. WEGO gets the simultaneous part right but the sentient part wrong. IGOUGO gets the sentient part right and the simultaneous part wrong.

For most situations the sentient part is far more important. Most of the time one side is primarily in a positional defense, where WEGO will have little impact . . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
However, it doesn't compete with TOAW because the scales are different. And then there's the question of the first word in your above quote.