Comprehensive Wishlist

[Curtis Lemay]

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.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

I don't know about the matrix.

See my post #1394.

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.

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

I said as much in post #1418.

[macgregor]

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?

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Panama

I don't know about the matrix.

See my post #1394.

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.

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 [:D]) 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. [&:]

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

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

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.

[Curtis Lemay]

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.

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.

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).

[ColinWright]

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.

[Panama]

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?

[sPzAbt653]

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.

[:@]

[Panama]

Well paint me green and call me Gumbi. I guess I never tried to do that so I assumed it just targeted bridges. [:D]

The best option would be one that is backward compatible. Equally effects old and new scenarios.

You could remake the game so rivers follow hex sides. However, you would also have to have a provision to revert to the 'old' method too so existing scenarios are not automatically worthless. That's a lot of work by a lot of people that would be down the tubes.

I guess the most simple method would be two new tiles. Bridge. One for rail. One for road. But then again, I'm sure that would impact a huge amout of code. If someone wanted to go back and modify an existing scenario they could do so.

In the end the most simple solution would be for players to agree not to blow up non bridge road and rail. [;)]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

What differences have you identified?

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

1. Obstructions/mines can be cleared by non-engineers (by engineers too, of course, but not only by engineers). It is a simple fact of nature that human beings can clear obstructions from roads, especially if equipped with vehicles. Engineers have more valuable tasks to perform than removing obstructions. So, restricting obstruction removal to engineers would be a colossal waste and a sure path to defeat.

2. The percentage chance of bridge repair is completely unrelated to the percentage chance of obstruction clearing.

3. Obstructions affect vehicles far more severely than foot units. Not true for a bridge.

4. Mines cause casualties - and can be ignored at a casualty cost.

5. Can any unit lay mines? Gotta have the things. (Don't just think 2000, think 1900, too - or even 1800).

6. Mines aren't limited to roads. Clearly, mines need their own treatment.

7. Refinements to bridge destruction/repair to handle major bridges differently from minor ones would absurdly mean that a road, running along a major river would be harder to obstruct/clear than one running along a minor one.

8. Bridge Attacks.

9. Ferry Units.

It should be painfully obvious to anyone not being willfully obtuse that these features should be treated separately.

And, remember it's other failing: It does absolutely nothing for existing scenarios. They would all have to be edited in order to benefit. Very few ever would be.

It's even questionable how many new scenarios would take advantage of the new tiles. We still see scenarios designed that don't even set the supply radius. This would be a confusing feature that would be harder to deal with than the Matrix - which would apply automatically.

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.

That is false. The hexes the matrix will select will absolutely contain bridges. The matrix will assume a bridge wherever a road cosses a river. That's a bridge no matter what the map maker's intent was. Units in the game will be able to cross the river by road at that point. That is a bridge, period.

It will also assume that there is no bridge in any hex where the road doesn't cross the river. There is some chance that the designer may have wanted a bridge in that hex. But to say that there is "no reason" to think he didn't is absurd. There is a very sound reason to think that: That the map designer was compeled to make his map look right. And it would only look right if the bridges appear on the map where they should.

And, remember what the alternative is: To leave it just the way it is now - every river-road combo blowable. And, for that one-in-a-million scenario where it would be critical, the Matrix rule could be made player optional.

And, if the scenario designer is still around and will edit his scenario - or for any new scenarios that will be created, the Matrix solution works even better than the "new tile" solution. Designers would be fully empowered to put a bridge anywhere they desire simply by complying with the Matrix rule. Plus, the result would ensure that it will be clear to players where the bridge is - by the visible crossing of the road over the river.

Finally, don't forget that the Matrix is the easiest to code - even if made optional. QED, once again.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
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.

[:@]

Whoa! According to Colin, you have "no reason" to assume that!

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
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.

[:@]

Whoa! According to Colin, you have "no reason" to assume that!

Point is, you have no reason to assume there isn't. At Duren, you know there is probably a bridge -- but only because the road leaves in two directions (it could be running down both banks, but never mind that).

If if forked off to the southwest only, it might have been on the West bank all the time. Indeed, absent it coming in from the east at some point to the north, there's no reason at all that couldn't be the case. Presumably the road builders didn't stick in gratuitious bridges. If the road was on the west bank to begin with, why put in a bridge when the road leaves the river to the west? Absent any evidence to the contrary, there's no reason to assume a bridge at all.

See my Colorado River example. Please. For example, no bridge on the Interstate when it leaves the Colorado at Grand Junction. It was on the north bank already, and now it's heading off in that direction. There's no bridge there -- whatever your 'Matrix' might decide.

It's not been what I've focused on as I've driven about, but this is hardly an isolated example.

I-5 starts running more or less along the Sacramento at Red Bluff and leaves it at Dunnigan.

Where are the bridges? Not at Red Bluff. There is one at Dunnigan. There's also one about a hex (depending on your scale) south of Redding, and there's another at Lakehead.

So we've got about a 150 km stretch of road and river. Let's assume we're at 10 km hexes. Counting from the south, call the hexes 1,2,3...15. As it happens, we have bridges (roughly) at 4, 7, and 15. None at 1.

How on earth is your 'Matrix' going to correctly pick these out? Are we about to hear some bafflegarb asserting the bridge at (3) is insignificant? That would actually be the one impossible crossing without a bridge. 7 and 15 would be fordable most times (if Lake Shasta wasn't there).

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



1. Obstructions/mines can be cleared by non-engineers (by engineers too, of course, but not only by engineers). It is a simple fact of nature that human beings can clear obstructions from roads, especially if equipped with vehicles. Engineers have more valuable tasks to perform than removing obstructions. So, restricting obstruction removal to engineers would be a colossal waste and a sure path to defeat...

Comic. Obstacle removal is one of the prime missions of engineers. At least, it was according to the last STAVKA directive I read.

Yet, in pursuit of your argument, you would have the engineers ignore the obstruction, and those lacking the equipment and expertise do the job.

I suppose if you were having your house remodeled, you'd insist on the roofers putting in the central heating, and the heating guys do the roof -- if that had to be done to make your point. After all, both groups probably could -- eventually, and badly.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Point is, you have no reason to assume there isn't.

Are you serious?! You can actually look at that map section and make that statement? You're that desperate?

Of course there's a reason to assume there isn't: The map designer didn't put one there. And it's pretty obvious that there shouldn't be one in that hex.

And, remember, without the Matrix, all six road-river combos shown on that map section are blowable. With the Matrix, only two are. The Matrix is clearly better, even if in a few cases it might not get the exact location of a specific bridge correct. The way bridge-blowing works in TOAW, number of bridges is more important than their exact locations.

See my Colorado River example. Please. For example, no bridge on the Interstate when it leaves the Colorado at Grand Junction. It was on the north bank already, and now it's heading off in that direction. There's no bridge there -- whatever your 'Matrix' might decide.

But the Matrix won't decide - the map designer will. He will be fully empowered to include or omit a bridge wherever he desires - by complying with the Matrix rule. And he will have been compelled to do so anyway, to make the map look right.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Comic. Obstacle removal is one of the prime missions of engineers. At least, it was according to the last STAVKA directive I read.

Yet, in pursuit of your argument, you would have the engineers ignore the obstruction, and those lacking the equipment and expertise do the job.

Whoa! We can't have someone removing a rock from a road who isn't officially certified to do so! You're right, this is comic.

And the engineers can join in if they wish, but I would expect them to have actual engineering tasks to do - like repairing blown bridges. And, of course, if the engineers are a foot unit, a motorized non-engineer unit might actually be better equipped to remove stuff.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Point is, you have no reason to assume there isn't.

Are you serious?! You can actually look at that map section and make that statement? You're that desperate?

Of course there's a reason to assume there isn't: The map designer didn't put one there. And it's pretty obvious that there shouldn't be one in that hex.

And, remember, without the Matrix, all six road-river combos shown on that map section are blowable. With the Matrix, only two are. The Matrix is clearly better, even if in a few cases it might not get the exact location of a specific bridge correct. The way bridge-blowing works in TOAW, number of bridges is more important than their exact locations.

See my Colorado River example. Please. For example, no bridge on the Interstate when it leaves the Colorado at Grand Junction. It was on the north bank already, and now it's heading off in that direction. There's no bridge there -- whatever your 'Matrix' might decide.

But the Matrix won't decide - the map designer will. He will be fully empowered to include or omit a bridge wherever he desires - by complying with the Matrix rule. And he will have been compelled to do so anyway, to make the map look right.

The only case when 'the Matrix' could be relied on to correctly designate a road/river combination a 'bridge' would be when the road enters from a non-river hex, coincides with the river for one hex and one hex only, and then exits to a non-river hex.

In that one case, the program already allows the player to blow the 'bridge.' In most other cases, it's unknowable from a TOAW map whether there is in fact a bridge in the hex. Might be in the first river/road hex. Might be in the second. Might be in both.

Your 'matrix' will simply arbitrarily designate certain river/road hexes 'bridges' and others not. There can't be a valid criterion because the TOAW map doesn't supply the necessary information. What's hard to understand about that?

Worse, you would then have designers swerve their roads onto and off rivers so as to comply with the nonsensical criteria that you would impose. Again, they can do that now -- and whatever happened to the sacred cow of already existing scenarios?

It's a terrible idea. You might as well decide that only road/river combinations in even-numbered hexes are bridges. There's no connection with actual reality at all.

I know you will never concede this in a post. I hope you will have the good sense to admit it to yourself in private and drop this idea.

'The Matrix' really, really doesn't accord with reality. It's a bad one. As a predictive device, it's down there with throwing suspected witches into the village pond to see if they float. Honest. I'm telling you as a friend.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Comic. Obstacle removal is one of the prime missions of engineers. At least, it was according to the last STAVKA directive I read.

Yet, in pursuit of your argument, you would have the engineers ignore the obstruction, and those lacking the equipment and expertise do the job.

Whoa! We can't have someone removing a rock from a road who isn't officially certified to do so! You're right, this is comic.

And the engineers can join in if they wish, but I would expect them to have actual engineering tasks to do - like repairing blown bridges. And, of course, if the engineers are a foot unit, a motorized non-engineer unit might actually be better equipped to remove stuff.

This is the same as 'the Matrix,' in a way.

Rather than concede that you have taken up an ill-considered and indefensible position, you just cling to it.

Of course, while debunking 'the Matrix' merely requires that you take a drive in the country or look at a road map, debunking your assertions about engineers would require reading some military history or looking at some statements of military doctrine. Reading a bit of detailed military history would probably suffice. I'd go find passages and quote them -- there were several in the Glantz book I just read on Kharkov.

However, it would be dull, I already know what's there, and you wouldn't be affected in the least.

You know...occasionally I propose some idea and it swiftly becomes apparent that it's ill-conceived. Won't work, doesn't improve matters, doesn't accord with reality, whatever. It happens to the best of us.

When that happens I drop the idea.

[ColinWright]

As so often happens in this situation, where Curtis digs in and vociferously defends a claim regardless of its merits, we've gotten away from the central point.

In fact, there are all kinds of locations where a road should be 'destructible' and reasons why it could be 'destructible.' River crossings are a good one -- but as illustrated, they're hardly a unique case. There's also the case that a river may not be otherwise militarily significant -- but does create a dandy bridge to blow. Also illustrated.

Since military circumstances vary, and since a TOAW map cannot provide sufficient information to determine where such points are or aren't, and since designers have different goals, the only improvement that's worth pursuing is to allow designers to freely designate which roads can be destroyed and which can't. Obviously, the default would be river/road hexes only -- which would leave current scenarios unaffected.

Pending someone raising some fresh consideration, that's just the way it is.