Terrain Tile Names

[Curtis Lemay]

By attacking “along” the river it is unclear whether you intend to attack parallel to the river, or across the river.

Exactly. The river's location within the river hex is indeterminate - it can be anywhere within the hex. For that reason, if you insist on attacking up the line of river hexes you must expect to have to cross and re-cross the river over and over. (And repay the river combat penalty over and over). Hexside rivers have no such cost. They are too "neat". Reality is far messier than hexside rivers.

[rhinobones]

By attacking “along” the river it is unclear whether you intend to attack parallel to the river, or across the river.

Exactly. The river's location within the river hex is indeterminate - it can be anywhere within the hex. For that reason, if you insist on attacking up the line of river hexes you must expect to have to cross and re-cross the river over and over. (And repay the river combat penalty over and over). Hexside rivers have no such cost. They are too "neat". Reality is far messier than hexside rivers.

Don’t understand that a river location is “intermediate”.

Hexside eliminates the problem you describe. You attack along the left bank or right bank, none of this crisscrossing the river business. Everyone knows where the river is and the ambiguity you describe as reality, is gone.

Another oddity is your choice of using a rather infrequent maneuver of “attacking up the line of river hexes” to support the hex-in argument. I don’t know what your experience has been, but for me the times that I attack across a river, defend behind a river and just plain cross over a river far outnumbers the times I’ve attacked up a river. I’m sure you have a favorite example of attacking up a river, but I’ll bet it’s not a maneuver you use on a daily basis.

As for this business about hexside rivers being too neat, nothing wrong with being neat. I like neat!

Regards

[Simon Edmonds]

Hi all. I will restrict my comments as applying to scenarios of 10km scale and lower.

"Think about the downside to he-xside rivers: Riverine movement, bridge destruction, and bridge repair all become much more difficult to effect and use. Rivers have to actually straddle the hex-side - the only terrain to do so."

Riverine movement. If you wish to design a scenario with riverine movement then yes; the rivers directly effected need to be in the center. I can't recall WitE or WitW using riverine movement. that's the sort of standard we should be reaching for. The Mekong River on the other hand, should have at almost any scale.

Bridge Destruction/Repair. Where a designer wants a scenario where bridges play an important role the hex where the bridge is needs to have the river down the center. The rest can be on the hex-side.

Finally hex-sides... What else can be on hex-sides? Anything that creates an effect moving from hex A to hex B. Lakes, Ridges, Small forests, Coastlines, Fortifications, Limited swamps. There is a big list.

And remember! At the end of the day TOAWIV is just a computerized boardgame.

[Lobster]

Hi all. I will restrict my comments as applying to scenarios of 10km scale and lower.

"Think about the downside to he-xside rivers: Riverine movement, bridge destruction, and bridge repair all become much more difficult to effect and use. Rivers have to actually straddle the hex-side - the only terrain to do so."

Riverine movement. If you wish to design a scenario with riverine movement then yes; the rivers directly effected need to be in the center. I can't recall WitE or WitW using riverine movement. that's the sort of standard we should be reaching for. The Mekong River on the other hand, should have at almost any scale.

Bridge Destruction/Repair. Where a designer wants a scenario where bridges play an important role the hex where the bridge is needs to have the river down the center. The rest can be on the hex-side.

Finally hex-sides... What else can be on hex-sides? Anything that creates an effect moving from hex A to hex B. Lakes, Ridges, Small forests, Coastlines, Fortifications, Limited swamps. There is a big list.

And remember! At the end of the day TOAWIV is just a computerized boardgame.

River movement isn't a problem. Since the river can be attacked from either side the river unit counter can be in any hex bordering the river. Doesn't cause any movement problems that TOAW doesn't already present.
Bridge destruction or repair can happen from any hex the bridge touches so it can be blown from either side. Again not a problem.
Pontoon or engineer units can be in any hex the river touches and aid crossing the river from either hex since the river touches both sides.
Any perceived problems can be overcome by game mechanics/programming. Escarpments pose some of the same problems as rivers yet they are on hex sides. Maybe Norm landed on in hex rivers because it was unique ignoring some of the obvious pitfalls. I don't know. I don't pretend to know what he was thinking.

[rhinobones]

"Think about the downside to he-xside rivers: Riverine movement, bridge destruction, and bridge repair all become much more difficult to effect and use. Rivers have to actually straddle the hex-side - the only terrain to do so."
Riverine movement. If you wish to design a scenario with riverine movement then yes; the rivers directly effected need to be in the center.

I don’t see any reason why riverine units can’t travel along river hex sides and transition to water hexes for shallow water/lake movement. Bridge engineers would have the option to stop on a river hex side for conducting crossing operations.

The only other terrain type I see being affected by this hex side business is the wadi terrain. All other terrains seem to be good as is.

Regards

[Curtis Lemay]

By attacking “along” the river it is unclear whether you intend to attack parallel to the river, or across the river.

Exactly. The river's location within the river hex is indeterminate - it can be anywhere within the hex. For that reason, if you insist on attacking up the line of river hexes you must expect to have to cross and re-cross the river over and over. (And repay the river combat penalty over and over). Hexside rivers have no such cost. They are too "neat". Reality is far messier than hexside rivers.

Don’t understand that a river location is “intermediate”.

What I said (and you've even quoted it above!) is "indeterminate". I then go on to actually define it in the next clause.

Hexside eliminates the problem you describe. You attack along the left bank or right bank, none of this crisscrossing the river business. Everyone knows where the river is and the ambiguity you describe as reality, is gone.

Right. It doesn't model this real war factor. That's not a good thing.

Another oddity is your choice of using a rather infrequent maneuver of “attacking up the line of river hexes” to support the hex-in argument. I don’t know what your experience has been, but for me the times that I attack across a river, defend behind a river and just plain cross over a river far outnumbers the times I’ve attacked up a river. I’m sure you have a favorite example of attacking up a river, but I’ll bet it’s not a maneuver you use on a daily basis.

Frontal warfare requires the frontlines to advance anywhere possible. If the defender's weak point is along the river, that's where it makes sense to hit him. And if you're never going to go that route, I can make that a VERY weak point! (And everything else gets that much stronger).

As for this business about hexside rivers being too neat, nothing wrong with being neat. I like neat!

Regards

TOAW is about realism.

[Curtis Lemay]

River movement isn't a problem. Since the river can be attacked from either side the river unit counter can be in any hex bordering the river. Doesn't cause any movement problems that TOAW doesn't already present.

It's close to unsolvable. The riverine unit must be on the map - but what if both sides of the river are occuppied by enemy units? Where do you put the riverine unit? Even if that is solved, there has to be some graphic showing which hexside the unit is in, and a mechanism for the player to use to order movement by hexside.

Bridge destruction or repair can happen from any hex the bridge touches so it can be blown from either side. Again not a problem.
Pontoon or engineer units can be in any hex the river touches and aid crossing the river from either hex since the river touches both sides.
Any perceived problems can be overcome by game mechanics/programming. Escarpments pose some of the same problems as rivers yet they are on hex sides. Maybe Norm landed on in hex rivers because it was unique ignoring some of the obvious pitfalls. I don't know. I don't pretend to know what he was thinking.

Both the usage and coding issues are very difficult. Escarpments are adjacent to the hexsides, not on them.

[Lobster]

What I see is that the vast majority of operational/strategic and even some tactical hex wargames use hexside rivers. I guess some of the biggest names in game design from the biggest wargame design studios on the planet must all be stupid game designers and had no idea what they were doing because rivers are indeterminate . Jim Dunnigan, Redmond Simonsen, John Tiller, John Edwards, Frank Chadwick, John Astell. I would be here all week listing them.

[rhinobones]

What I see is that the vast majority of operational/strategic and even some tactical hex wargames use hexside rivers. I guess some of the biggest names in game design from the biggest wargame design studios on the planet must all be stupid game designers and had no idea what they were doing because rivers are indeterminate . Jim Dunnigan, Redmond Simonsen, John Tiller, John Edwards, Frank Chadwick, John Astell. I would be here all week listing them.

We’re not discussing TOAW. We’ve long since given up on the idea that TOAW would ever change. The point of the discussion is the merits (or not) of a hex side river scheme.

Has any designer other than Norm used hex-in rivers? Whatever his reasoning, the majority of the design community has not followed his lead and so far I have not heard a compelling reason to use his system.

Regards, RhinoBones

[Lobster]

What I see is that the vast majority of operational/strategic and even some tactical hex wargames use hexside rivers. I guess some of the biggest names in game design from the biggest wargame design studios on the planet must all be stupid game designers and had no idea what they were doing because rivers are indeterminate . Jim Dunnigan, Redmond Simonsen, John Tiller, John Edwards, Frank Chadwick, John Astell. I would be here all week listing them.

We’re not discussing TOAW. We’ve long since given up on the idea that TOAW would ever change. The point of the discussion is the merits (or not) of a hex side river scheme.

Has any designer other than Norm used hex-in rivers? Whatever his reasoning, the majority of the design community has not followed his lead and so far I have not heard a compelling reason to use his system.

Regards, RhinoBones

Exactly. Why have so many of the biggest names in wargames used hexside rivers vs in hex rivers for operational scale games? I believe it's because it simplifies so many issues that crop up with in hex rivers. Also it appears Norm was at some point considering hex side rivers. Looking at some of his other games it would appear he is a big proponent of in hex rivers. It would be interesting to get his take on it.

[cathar1244]

I recall being unpleasantly surprised when I first realized there was a supply hit for being in a "super" river hex in TOAW.

That made no sense back then and still does not today. TOAW seems to assume (on that point) that the unit has crossed the "super" river (where no bridge is present) and therefore the unit suffers supply difficulties for being on the far side of the river. Yet, if one wishes to attack out of that hex, one pays the combat penalty as if the unit were still on the near side of the river and has to perform a crossing under fire.

Inconsistent application of what in means for a unit to be in a "super" river hex without bridges.

Cheers

[Curtis Lemay]

What I see is that the vast majority of operational/strategic and even some tactical hex wargames use hexside rivers. I guess some of the biggest names in game design from the biggest wargame design studios on the planet must all be stupid game designers and had no idea what they were doing because rivers are indeterminate . Jim Dunnigan, Redmond Simonsen, John Tiller, John Edwards, Frank Chadwick, John Astell. I would be here all week listing them.

We’re not discussing TOAW. We’ve long since given up on the idea that TOAW would ever change. The point of the discussion is the merits (or not) of a hex side river scheme.

Has any designer other than Norm used hex-in rivers? Whatever his reasoning, the majority of the design community has not followed his lead and so far I have not heard a compelling reason to use his system.

Regards, RhinoBones

Exactly. Why have so many of the biggest names in wargames used hexside rivers vs in hex rivers for operational scale games? I believe it's because it simplifies so many issues that crop up with in hex rivers. Also it appears Norm was at some point considering hex side rivers. Looking at some of his other games it would appear he is a big proponent of in hex rivers. It would be interesting to get his take on it.

Here it is again: The entire basis for hexside rivers is "that's how it's always been done". How could anybody buck that group-think?

[Lobster]

So you think the entire basis is because that's how it's always been done? Without even considering why that's how it's always been done. Whay are the pros and cons of hexside rivers? What are the pros and cons of in hex rivers?

One of your cons is how a unit that uses river movement has to be on the map. With a digital game that isn't a problem at all. A unit can be anyplace on the playing surface a programmer wants it to be including on a hex side. We are talking digital games not board games.

[Simon Edmonds]

I suppose that the easiest way to resolve this is to take a poll on the main forum. A; for in hex rivers only. B; for hex side rivers only. C; for both hex side and in hex rivers.

[rhinobones]

The river's location within the river hex is indeterminate - it can be anywhere within the hex. For that reason, if you insist on attacking up the line of river hexes you must expect to have to cross and re-cross the river over and over. (And repay the river combat penalty over and over). Hexside rivers have no such cost. They are too "neat". Reality is far messier than hexside rivers.

I don’t believe that the location of a river is a mystery and best mapped as an “intermediate” . Recon, even low-quality maps, readily identify physical location with the river acting as a barrier between adjacent terrain. Hex-side maps place rivers in the spotted location, hex-in rivers erroneously treat rivers as unknown even after spotting.

As far as units crisscrossing rivers as they move/attack, that’s just plain nonsense. I see no reality in a unit commander crossing back and forth (by river I mean a flowing body of water which requires specialized equipment/troops to negotiate) as they move toward an engagement. This just doesn’t happen; the commander uses the river to protect the flank and only crosses when the tactical/strategic situation requires a crossing.

The only value I see for hex-in rivers is to identify hex locations which have not been spotted. The river bed in unspotted locations could be drawn as undefined (hex-in) and converted to hex-side after reconnaissance is performed. But why add complexity and coding when the return on effort is trivial.

Regards, RhinoBones

[Curtis Lemay]

I don’t believe that the location of a river is a mystery and best mapped as an “intermediate” .

"Indeterminate", not "intermediate". (Where are you getting "intermediate"???).

Recon, even low-quality maps, readily identify physical location with the river acting as a barrier between adjacent terrain.

Yes, the location of the river is well identified on a physical map. But then we have to convert that map to a hexgrid. That's when its location becomes "indeterminate": It's somewhere in the hex, exactly where can't be specified on a hexgrid.

Hex-side maps place rivers in the spotted location,

No they don't. They erroneously place them on the hexsides - almost never where the river actually was on the physical map.

hex-in rivers erroneously treat rivers as unknown even after spotting.

No. They correctly treat rivers as somewhere inside the hex - exactly where can't be specified on a hexgrid.

As far as units crisscrossing rivers as they move/attack, that’s just plain nonsense. I see no reality in a unit commander crossing back and forth (by river I mean a flowing body of water which requires specialized equipment/troops to negotiate) as they move toward an engagement. This just doesn’t happen; the commander uses the river to protect the flank and only crosses when the tactical/strategic situation requires a crossing.

It is not nonsense. It is exactly what you would have to do if ordered to attack on the axis directly up the line of river hexes. Yes, you can go around on the flanks - IF those flanks aren't denied to you by the enemy's defenses. If the enemy is too powerful on the flanks you will be channeled right up the line of river hexes.

[rhinobones]

I don’t believe that the location of a river is a mystery and best mapped as an “intermediate” .

"Indeterminate", not "intermediate". (Where are you getting "intermediate"???).

You're right, the eyes are getting older. Fortunately, the error doesn't impact my base point.

Regards

[Lobster]

It is not nonsense. It is exactly what you would have to do if ordered to attack on the axis directly up the line of river hexes. Yes, you can go around on the flanks - IF those flanks aren't denied to you by the enemy's defenses. If the enemy is too powerful on the flanks you will be channeled right up the line of river hexes.

There are a number of examples where a river was cleared on one side by sweeping up or down the river. The Italian Pasubio Division did that exact thing in Ukraine in WW2 when they cleared the west bank and sealed of crossing points from Jampol to Nikolyev in August 41. So, right up the line of river hexes without having to cross the river. Didn't cross the river once. And no. No one in their right mind would order a unit to assault a river over and over again. It isn't a simple thing and takes a large amount of time. Far too long to accomplish what you imply. In hex rivers deny you the ability to move up a river without crossing it again and again and again. Even if there are no enemy troops within 1000 miles. Oh yeah, I forget the bends. Somehow people are too stupid to follow the river and instead cross on each and every bend they come up to. That guy would be court martialed or relegated to pushing papers.

Why doesn't supply reach into a 'super' river hex? From either side?

[Curtis Lemay]

It is not nonsense. It is exactly what you would have to do if ordered to attack on the axis directly up the line of river hexes. Yes, you can go around on the flanks - IF those flanks aren't denied to you by the enemy's defenses. If the enemy is too powerful on the flanks you will be channeled right up the line of river hexes.

There are a number of examples where a river was cleared on one side by sweeping up or down the river. The Italian Pasubio Division did that exact thing in Ukraine in WW2 when they cleared the west bank and sealed of crossing points from Jampol to Nikolyev in August 41. So, right up the line of river hexes without having to cross the river. Didn't cross the river once. And no. No one in their right mind would order a unit to assault a river over and over again. It isn't a simple thing and takes a large amount of time. Far too long to accomplish what you imply. In hex rivers deny you the ability to move up a river without crossing it again and again and again. Even if there are no enemy troops within 1000 miles. Oh yeah, I forget the bends. Somehow people are too stupid to follow the river and instead cross on each and every bend they come up to. That guy would be court martialed or relegated to pushing papers.

Why doesn't supply reach into a 'super' river hex? From either side?

So a river wandering around a line of hexes should provide no defensive benefit - just like it was clear terrain, as if the river wasn't even there? No defender could exploit the river's wandering? I wonder why entrenchments have zig-zag patterns?

Yes, it's possible to go around the bends - if the enemy lets you (that would be modeled by the clear terrain on either side of the river hexes). But, if he doesn't, and you still want to go up the line of river hexes, crossings are going to be required.

[RedAss]

Man, is this thread a great read! Great points all around, I see the merits of both and absolutely love the "give a damn" on both sides (pun intended). Clearly the best option is to give the scenario designer the option, and clearly that is never likely to happen. This one will likely remain in the pantheon of arguments with Stones/Beatles, Ginger/Mary Anne and Gin Martini/Vodka Martini.*

Not to drag us back to the original topic, but since it IS up there somewhere: since the change is hard coaded, am I correct in thinking that if I create a Savannah terrain to replace jungle, that would mean that:
A: it would NOT be scenario specific -- that is, it would replace the name "Jungle" with "Savannah" in every scenario
and
B: would only ocur on my machine.
























*The correct answers are: Stones (for their intermediate indeterminism), Mary Anne (for her riverine movement) and Gin Martini, because if you use vodka, it is no longer a martini -- you are now drinking something else (and lesser). You're all welcome, back to the rivers!