Problem with 1 Tank per Hex

[Gerry4321]

In the first example a tank with reliability problems immobilized on the first start. Notice there is no place for the other ones to move to!

Second example not quite so bad as I can move around the OOC tank.

Please consider allowing tanks to drive through a hex containing another tank. I don't want two tanks per hex, just to drive through. I don't mind losing in games but this restriction is taking away a lot of the fun.

Second example in next post.

[Gerry4321]

Second example here:

[MikeMarchant_ssl]

The idea that only a single AFV can occupy a space greater than 1000 square metres, or that one AFV can't pass another in such a space is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

If the intention is to model ASL all well and good, but there's no reason to model the really stupid bits.


Best Wishes

Mike

[Missouri_Rebel]

ORIGINAL: MikeMarchant_ssl

The idea that only a single AFV can occupy a space greater than 1000 square metres, or that one AFV can't pass another in such a space is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

If the intention is to model ASL all well and good, but there's no reason to model the really stupid bits.


Best Wishes

Mike

Couldnt tanks bypass move through hexes that had tanks in them in ASL?

IMO, tanks should be able to move through hexes but pay a big movement penalty, incur a penalty if they fire from the hex (or maybe no fire at all) and any interdiction into the hex containing 2 tanks be done with a positive modifier.

Of course, what takes a sentence to write is many lines of code I am sure.

[Monkie]

ASL modeled what I believe was called "bypass movement" or something like that which would have allowed those tanks to move around the disabled unit. Then tank was assumed to be moving right along the hex sides themselves. Maybe that can be implemented in the future.

[Gerry4321]

Bypass in ASL could be used by tanks and infantry for bypassing buildings and woods hexsides.

[Missouri_Rebel]

idjester had a good discussion about bypass movement in his stream last night. I thought they were on the mark concerning ASL, and the effort to implement them in a boardgame, but imo, there needs to be a way to circumvent the issue above.

[dynaman216]

An extra tank was normally a simple +1mp in ASL (with some other penalties firing out and on bridges etc...). There was no stacking limit as such

[Missouri_Rebel]

ORIGINAL: Gerry

Bypass in ASL could be used by tanks and infantry for bypassing buildings and woods hexsides.

While the idea of Bypass is nice, and maybe idjester touched on it, but, can you imagine interdiction for every hexspine? I'd prefer an easier alternative if they ever revisit it in the future.

[idjester]

ORIGINAL: Gerry

In the first example a tank with reliability problems immobilized on the first start. Notice there is no place for the other ones to move to!

Second example not quite so bad as I can move around the OOC tank.

Please consider allowing tanks to drive through a hex containing another tank. I don't want two tanks per hex, just to drive through. I don't mind losing in games but this restriction is taking away a lot of the fun.

Second example in next post.

Gerry I do get your point but a D2 map can look deceiving when you compare that to reality. There isn't 1000 meters of free space between those building and we sometime forget the realities of war when looking at a D2 map. Hardly even did a tank or vehicle pass another one when they were moving unless they were in open landscape.

Just ask the British soldiers at Arnhem about this. They were told their relief force was coming from just miles away and would be there shortly but these reinforcements were attacked by a few German soldiers, which blew up some of the lead tanks. Since they were traveling down a single lane road these units ground to a halt. They could go nowhere for days until they removed the tanks that were in front. 4 miles of vehicles stacked up behind a few broken down tanks.

The reality of this situation is that you can’t just drive around a vehicle because one broke down in front of you. There normally isn’t the space, there isn’t the maneuverability, and the time and effort to undertake this just wasn’t feasible.

As mentioned above we don’t want to get into a situation where by-pass movement is the way to go because of the logistics of worrying about hexspine movement, broken units in by-pass movement, and LOS with a unit in by-pass. It boils down to need verses want.

Maybe this will get changed in a future update to TOTH if Peter thinks it is important but I just wanted to give a different perspective on the situation which we can’t see when we are looking at a 2D map.

idjester

[idjester]

BTW, I am not saying I am not infavor of multi vehicles in a hex but we have to remember this is alot of extra coding that Peter would have to do to implement this. Because now when your targeting a hex
with more than 1 vehicle he would have to bring up a menu to select the vehicle you want to hit with your attack, plus the coding for having those counters in the same hex and overlaying them, and probably
a bunch of other things as well that I don't know about because I am not a programmer.

Is it worth the time and effor for Peter to do this when his time and effort could be used elsewhere?

Need vs. Want...

[MikeMarchant_ssl]

ORIGINAL: idjester

ORIGINAL: Gerry

In the first example a tank with reliability problems immobilized on the first start. Notice there is no place for the other ones to move to!

Second example not quite so bad as I can move around the OOC tank.

Please consider allowing tanks to drive through a hex containing another tank. I don't want two tanks per hex, just to drive through. I don't mind losing in games but this restriction is taking away a lot of the fun.

Second example in next post.

Gerry I do get your point but a D2 map can look deceiving when you compare that to reality. There isn't 1000 meters of free space between those building and we sometime forget the realities of war when looking at a D2 map. Hardly even did a tank or vehicle pass another one when they were moving unless they were in open landscape.

Just ask the British soldiers at Arnhem about this. They were told their relief force was coming from just miles away and would be there shortly but these reinforcements were attacked by a few German soldiers, which blew up some of the lead tanks. Since they were traveling down a single lane road these units ground to a halt. They could go nowhere for days until they removed the tanks that were in front. 4 miles of vehicles stacked up behind a few broken down tanks.

The reality of this situation is that you can’t just drive around a vehicle because one broke down in front of you. There normally isn’t the space, there isn’t the maneuverability, and the time and effort to undertake this just wasn’t feasible.

As mentioned above we don’t want to get into a situation where by-pass movement is the way to go because of the logistics of worrying about hexspine movement, broken units in by-pass movement, and LOS with a unit in by-pass. It boils down to need verses want.

Maybe this will get changed in a future update to TOTH if Peter thinks it is important but I just wanted to give a different perspective on the situation which we can’t see when we are looking at a 2D map.

idjester

You're right to say that there are a lot of situations where an AFV wouldn't be able to pass another. A narrow road with boggy ground to either side, where the AFVs would simply get stuck (as at Arnhem) is a good example. A narrow street in Stalingrad might be another, or crossing a rail bridge over the Rhine. But these are largely the exceptions. The vast majority of hexes on most TotH boards would allow such passing of one AFV by another. I realise that this poses a problem for Peter, in how to be able to model both situations.

Allowing AFVs in all hexes to be able to pass one another restricts those scenarios where the inability to do that adds to the tactical interest of the scenario and makes the scenario more historically accurate, and that is clearly undesirable. Denying AFVs the ability to pass each other in all hexes clearly hampers the tactical interest and historical accuracy of other scenarios, which is clearly undesirable. The alternative, to attach to each hex a property that defines whether AFVs can pass in it or not requires more work from Peter, and although this might be the most desirable solution for us players, for Peter it's a decision of priorities. The time spent on this is time not spent on something else.


Best Wishes

Mike

[Peter Fisla]

Allowing two vehicles per hex is a huge undertaking and it impacts almost every area of the game engine.

1) It would require to modify the game database and scenario file structure as well as game editor.

2) Almost all the game rules, Fire, movement, stacking, close combat, AI would need to be modified.

We are talking months of work here, it's a major re-design/development impact on the game engine; not something that I'm really interested in. I made a decision early on in the development to only allow one vehicle per hex. The impact on the game development was big, from the game play perspective the impact is not so big - from my point of view.

[MikeMarchant_ssl]

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

Allowing two vehicles per hex is a huge undertaking and it impacts almost every area of the game engine.

1) It would require to modify the game database and scenario file structure as well as game editor.

2) Almost all the game rules, Fire, movement, stacking, close combat, AI would need to be modified.

We are talking months of work here, it's a major re-design/development impact on the game engine; not something that I'm really interested in. I made a decision early on in the development to only allow one vehicle per hex. The impact on the game development was big, from the game play perspective the impact is not so big - from my point of view.

Totally understandable, Peter, but what about allowing AFVs to pass each other, rather than occupy the same hex? How much work would that involve?


Best Wishes

Mike

[Peter Fisla]

ORIGINAL: MikeMarchant_ssl

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

Allowing two vehicles per hex is a huge undertaking and it impacts almost every area of the game engine.

1) It would require to modify the game database and scenario file structure as well as game editor.

2) Almost all the game rules, Fire, movement, stacking, close combat, AI would need to be modified.

We are talking months of work here, it's a major re-design/development impact on the game engine; not something that I'm really interested in. I made a decision early on in the development to only allow one vehicle per hex. The impact on the game development was big, from the game play perspective the impact is not so big - from my point of view.

Totally understandable, Peter, but what about allowing AFVs to pass each other, rather than occupy the same hex? How much work would that involve?


Best Wishes

Mike

That won't work since stacking of 1 AFV per hex is always enforced. In addition, if you move your AFV and the enemy wants to defensive fire on then your AFV has to be a hex.

[Gerry4321]

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

Allowing two vehicles per hex is a huge undertaking and it impacts almost every area of the game engine.

1) It would require to modify the game database and scenario file structure as well as game editor.

2) Almost all the game rules, Fire, movement, stacking, close combat, AI would need to be modified.

We are talking months of work here, it's a major re-design/development impact on the game engine; not something that I'm really interested in. I made a decision early on in the development to only allow one vehicle per hex. The impact on the game development was big, from the game play perspective the impact is not so big - from my point of view.

I understand the difficulties. However the impact on gameplay is very significant as in the pic above. It would not be a problem if the player could place the AFVs at setup. Now they are all lined up and when the first is immobilized there is no way to get that guy out of the way.

Plus there is no bypass capability so the other AFVs cannot go anywhere. It affects so many other AFVs in this scenario.

In real life they would push it off the road. We cannot do that.

[dox44]

can immobilization be made an option?

[Peter Fisla]

ORIGINAL: casebier

can immobilization be made an option?

In the scenario editor yes, not in the game.

[harley9699]

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

Allowing two vehicles per hex is a huge undertaking and it impacts almost every area of the game engine.

1) It would require to modify the game database and scenario file structure as well as game editor.

2) Almost all the game rules, Fire, movement, stacking, close combat, AI would need to be modified.

We are talking months of work here, it's a major re-design/development impact on the game engine; not something that I'm really interested in. I made a decision early on in the development to only allow one vehicle per hex. The impact on the game development was big, from the game play perspective the impact is not so big - from my point of view.

So, you get a situation like Gerry's, that's it? Game over, right? Doesn't matter how many turns in, "screw you, you're done."
Should be able to do something. Hell, push them with an AFV or something.
Not cool.

[waltero]

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

Allowing two vehicles per hex is a huge undertaking and it impacts almost every area of the game engine.

1) It would require to modify the game database and scenario file structure as well as game editor.

2) Almost all the game rules, Fire, movement, stacking, close combat, AI would need to be modified.

We are talking months of work here, it's a major re-design/development impact on the game engine; not something that I'm really interested in. I made a decision early on in the development to only allow one vehicle per hex. The impact on the game development was big, from the game play perspective the impact is not so big - from my point of view.

Its beginning to look as if this is the finished product. Starting to sound a little bleak around here...when coding becomes the main focal point (problematic).
Maybe it is time for Peter to take a break. Upon his return, after leaving his baby, having a fresh outlook on his creation...God willing- do what ever it takes to make this the greatest game the World has ever seeeen!
THE WORLD!!!

Peter, Peter he's our man, if he can't do it no one can!