ORIGINAL: IronDuke
That is the entire point, they simply will not and indeed can not be mixed until someone attempts a crossing. Whether tactically, strategically, operationally or hillbillywilly, forces aren't mixed if they are on separate sides of the river. Trying to see things in this "macro operational" sense is just smoke and mirrors because the river provides a barrier between any interaction on whatever scale you want.
ORIGINAL: Curtis LemayI'm sorry, but that just isn't true. First, let's consider the macro case: Think of the Seine in 1944 (reference my "France 1944" scenario if needed). Did the Allies wait before crossing the Seine anywhere until every single inch of it on the Western side was Allied controlled? Of course not. Would players wait until every single hex of it on the Western side was Allied controlled before crossing anywhere? Again, of course not. It was crossed in multiple places long before all of the areas west of it were cleared. And that's just what will happen in TOAW.
But they don't have to wait until all the western bank is secured whether we have river hexes or river hex sides, I don't see what you are getting at here. You can take a stretch of west bank then immediately throw yourselves across to the east in either setting. My point is that you throw yourselves across by choice and don't get across for free if the other bank is defended. Here you do with river hexes, since any counterattack into an occupied river hex treats the defenders as if they did get across.
Now, just translate that to the micro scale internal to the hex. Tactically, the same thing will occur. There is actually no guarantee that there will ever be a magic instance in which everybody is neatly on their respective sides of the river. It can happen, but it will be an exception.
Incorrect. It is true up to the point that
someone attempts a crossing. If the other bank is defended, at no scale are small units going to just jump across for the hell of it. Deliberate River crossings are carefully planned operations, generally requiring air and artillery co-ordination and support from Corp and Army attachments. Not to mention engineers. A hasty river crossing might sometimes be attempted if surprise is possible and the defenders weak, but then you can simulate that under the present situationm anyhow.
If the other side isn't defended at all, then subject to engineers, units can cross anyway.
In your "macro operational" sense, you enter the river hex and are teleported instantly across the river even if you have no amphibious abilities or engineers available. Your entire Unit (at the "macro operational" scale sometimes a Corp strong) makes this miraculous journey and once across the river becomes vulnerable to counteratttack.
What?? If it's a super river, you can't enter the hex without ferry ability.
And if it isn't? If you're on the hex with an engineer unit, you suffer the same penalties even though you haven't crossed.
However, (and here's the fun bit) having entered the hex and having magically gotten across the river without the aid of engineers, our "macro operational" Wunder swimmers cross back to their own side in order to make a full scale assault. How else can we explain having to cross the river to attack the enemy but already be across it if the enemy attack you first?
Again, the engineers or some sort of ferry ability are needed to enter the super river hex.
And if it isn;t a super river hex, or you are on the river hex with engineers?
Once in that area, the force will be offensively debilitated by being in that area. As I've said before, TOAW doesn't model the river as a boundary, but as an area. Neither way is perfect. Each has it's own merits.
But the river is a boundary, just like a trenchline or fixed fortifications.
It simply makes no sense. The only think making less sense are the attempts to defend it (with respect).
It only makes no sense if one insists on treating it as if it were modeling the river as a boundary.
Well, how do we describe a piece of terrain that prohibits normal movement? We model escarpments, coastlines, front lines etc.
No, of course not, but then single hills don't cover 50 square kilometres as they do on large scale maps for all intents and purposes. Since when have the maps been anything over than rough approximations? Why can we approximate everything except this.
Or let me turn the question around? Do you believe all rivers fall neatly in the middle of hexes?
They all fall neatly in the hexes. Since they're modeled as areas, that's not as distorting as being "frogmarched" (as Colin put it) into the hexsides.
But the maps are not so uber accurate this is actually a consideration, see hills above.
Neither can you. Neither method models all the tactical considerations.
But one does. River hex sides put you on one side or the other until you use movement or aggressive action to get across.
How is this different in any way to reality?
As I've said, hexside rivers don't model the transverse defense benefit.
But who was deliberating about macro above? Without prompting, units are crossing defended rivers on a small scale because you think it happens on the macro scale, yet here you're worried about a specific tactical consideration. Like I said earlier, why is transverse an issue, crossing hex sides models this by your direction.
Disingenuous (because you can't have misunderstood my point). What you made up was the cause of the effect. The Allies did get across in numerous places, but it had nothing to do with rivers being poor military obstacles, and everything to do with relative combat power.
It is a fact that the Rhine was crossed easily in multiple places in 1945. The why is theory.
Yes, but the Hudson is crossed easily every single day by thousands of people, we wouldn't use that fact to model a combat crossing of the Rhine though, would we? The theory in this case is everything.
Let me ask you a question. Why do you think the Allies crossed so easily in so many places?
Someone else has already disagreed with you, here, but without engineers you can't get across at all, supplies are poor without a bridge, I don't believe tac reserve works across a river and you're more vulnerable to counterattack than anywhere ese. Rivers are not just about the initial assault, TOAW models the rest of it as well.
Regardless, it remains only a 30% penalty. And note that that penalty must be paid anyway if the offensive is to continue on. It's just a matter of specifically where it gets paid.
Almost a third of your combat power. "Only" is in the eye of the beholder. It's also the same penalty applied to Marines wading ashore at Tarawa and GIs coming ashore at Omaha. Were these difficult operations? Norm seems to think the river crossing was just as perilous.
Perhaps he hadn't seen our infamous picture of the Dyle [;)].
No matter how you try to wiggle out of it, the costs are going to be huge for this.
So? We're arguing about whether such a change should be done on rules grounds. The argument about priority is a separate one to be had once we've decided what is best.
No. It was completely correct. The benefits of this change will be practically non-existent. For sure no existing scenario will see any benefit at all.
Unless designers re do them. Designers have been tweaking their scenarios in line with changes since the dawn of time. Also, it is little about penality. You ignoring the issues with being in a river hex and defending, and having to defend river bridge hexes does not make them go away.
The argument there are more important considerations I can accept, the argument "things should stay as they are because I like the look better" I can't and won't.
That is not anyone's point and you know it. If TOAW had come out with hexside rivers I would not be here arguing that we should switch to river hexes no matter the cost.
I have seen the ascetic argument wheeled out in this thread.
Even the first argument rings a little hollow to me given the real important considerations are yet to be considered, but plenty of less important ones already have.
Again, low cost items have been focused on. High cost items must have high benefit.
What high cost/high benefit items have been worked on to date?
regards,
IronDuke
