Comprehensive Wishlist

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

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?

Again, it is not arbitrary. It designates the hex as a bridge if the road crosses the river. That's a sound reason because the map maker was compelled to make the road cross the river at the bridge for appearance purposes.

And, again, the only alternative is to leave it just the way it is now - with every road/river combo blowable. Now, that truly is arbitrary. And very bad for scenarios. The Matrix is clearly a big improvement over that.

Anyone looking at that map section shown above can easily see just how ridiculous you're being. In effect, you're saying there never was a problem at all. We were all just delusional. Well, we weren't. The problem is real and the Matrix is the only solution that fixes it for existing scenarios.

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.

That's one way. Or meander the river. Or a combination of both. Or add a stub tributary. The latter wouldn't be any different, for game purposes, than using a dedicated tile.

In all cases, though, it is better to do that, because it clearly shows the players where the bridge is. And, personally, if I were modeling a road through a canyon, I would want the road and river to swerve - since they actually would be doing so in reality, with the resulting increase in transit distance.

and whatever happened to the sacred cow of already existing scenarios?

The Matrix will benefit the vast majority, if not all, existing scenarios. But, for the chance that there's one that it would harm, it can be made player-optional.

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.

Actually it's the reverse. And it's gone beyond obvious. You're now being forced to descend into buffoonery. I don't really have any sympathy for you, though. You put yourself in these situations.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Actually it's the reverse. And it's gone beyond obvious. You're now being forced to descend into buffoonery. I don't really have any sympathy for you, though. You put yourself in these situations.

In context, this statement is mildly incredible. It's my belief that you're not actually stupid enough to believe this, therefore, you should seek help.

On reflection, if you do believe this, then you should really seek help.

[ColinWright]

Maybe I'm just being optimistic...

Go to the editor, open the magnified view. Now scroll to the bottom of the available terrain types. Now open the normal view.

See all those blank charcoal grey hexes at the bottom of the available terrain types? Are those unused slots?

[Curtis Lemay]

Having established the superiority of the Matrix solution for the bridge-blowing problem about as well the Law of Gravity, I’m sure that if and when this issue is addressed, it will be done with the Matrix.

I now want to move on to the other matrix I mentioned earlier. This would address a more difficult problem mentioned earlier by Colin: A unit can enter a river hex by road, then cross the river without paying the river cost, even if the hex didn’t actually contain a bridge.

For example, look at the targeted hex in the map section shown before: A unit that entered that hex via the road can then move west from it as if it is on the western side of the river, even though there is no bridge in that hex. But, if it had entered via the road, then it was on the eastern side of the river, and, since there is no bridge, it should pay the river cost to move west out of it.

To solve this, another, though more complex, matrix is required. In the first matrix, each matrix element was only a yes/no value (one bit). In the second, each element would hold a code representing which surrounding hexes were on the “road” side of the river. Since there are six surrounding hexes, that code would require six bits. To be practical, that means a full byte has to be used for each element. For example, the top (N) hex would be the 1 bit, the NE hex would be the 2 bit, the SE hex would be the 4 bit, the bottom (S) hex would be the 8 bit, the SW hex would be the 16 bit, and the NW hex would be the 32 bit. But the 64 x 64 map required would be the same as the one required for the previous matrix.

So, for the example hex in the map section, the N, NE, SE, and S hexes are on the road-side. Therefore the code for that hex would be 0F in hexadecimal (15 in decimal).

To use this, each unit would need to add a flag representing whether it entered its current hex via road or not (this could be useful for other issues, too). If it was false, the unit has already paid the river cost. Therefore, it can leave the hex without paying it again in any direction (just like now). But, if it was true, the unit hasn’t paid it yet. It can still leave in any “road-side” direction without paying it, but not in any other direction. Of course, the unit must pay the terrain cost of whatever hex it is entering. This only affects whether it has to pay the river cost (including any ferry requirements) of the hex it is currently in. The matrix shows the program which directions are “road-side”.

Note that this would be applied to the supply trace as well.

Obviously, this is a more complex matrix and will be harder to develop. And the coding task will be more difficult as well. But it is the only solution to this issue.

And, note that it only makes sense if the other, first, Matrix is implemented. Just one more reason to implement that.

[Panama]

So then you'll also fix the problem where a unit has to pay river crossing costs even if it doesn't cross the river, yes? Simply moving parllel to a river costs the same as if you crossed it. If you're going to clean it up might as well clean it all up or not at all. [;)]

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

So then you'll also fix the problem where a unit has to pay river crossing costs even if it doesn't cross the river, yes? Simply moving parllel to a river costs the same as if you crossed it. If you're going to clean it up might as well clean it all up or not at all. [;)]

The irony here is that very often, river valleys are the natural route of travel.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Panama

So then you'll also fix the problem where a unit has to pay river crossing costs even if it doesn't cross the river, yes? Simply moving parllel to a river costs the same as if you crossed it. If you're going to clean it up might as well clean it all up or not at all. [;)]

The irony here is that very often, river valleys are the natural route of travel.

[:D]

The easiest thing would be to redo the game with rivers following hexsides. Then have a legacy button where the old method is used for old scenarios.

Legacy on. Legacy off. Legacy on. Legacy off. Wax on. Wax off. [:D]

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Panama

So then you'll also fix the problem where a unit has to pay river crossing costs even if it doesn't cross the river, yes? Simply moving parllel to a river costs the same as if you crossed it. If you're going to clean it up might as well clean it all up or not at all. [;)]

The irony here is that very often, river valleys are the natural route of travel.

[:D]

The easiest thing would be to redo the game with rivers following hexsides. Then have a legacy button where the old method is used for old scenarios.

Legacy on. Legacy off. Legacy on. Legacy off. Wax on. Wax off. [:D]

Seconded. Clear, simple, reasonable. Probably even coding wouldn't have to be done from scratch as part of the code for escarpments could be used.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Panama

So then you'll also fix the problem where a unit has to pay river crossing costs even if it doesn't cross the river, yes? Simply moving parllel to a river costs the same as if you crossed it. If you're going to clean it up might as well clean it all up or not at all. [;)]

The irony here is that very often, river valleys are the natural route of travel.

[:D]

The easiest thing would be to redo the game with rivers following hexsides. Then have a legacy button where the old method is used for old scenarios.

Legacy on. Legacy off. Legacy on. Legacy off. Wax on. Wax off. [:D]

The 'rivers' would just be double-sided escarpments with a different tile as far as the program was concerned.

A few adjustments -- but I don't see any insuperable obstacles. In an ideal world, one would want blown bridges to look like they were blown over the river, though. Some discussion there. Also, what about the bonus for artillery firing 'down' the escarpment? Do we want artillery to gain an advantage if it is firing across a river?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

So then you'll also fix the problem where a unit has to pay river crossing costs even if it doesn't cross the river, yes? Simply moving parllel to a river costs the same as if you crossed it. If you're going to clean it up might as well clean it all up or not at all. [;)]

Depends upon how much the river meanders. They don't really move in straight lines right on the hex grid. But, this has been discussed to death. I'm not going to rehash it.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Panama

So then you'll also fix the problem where a unit has to pay river crossing costs even if it doesn't cross the river, yes? Simply moving parllel to a river costs the same as if you crossed it. If you're going to clean it up might as well clean it all up or not at all. [;)]

Depends upon how much the river meanders. They don't really move in straight lines right on the hex grid. But, this has been discussed to death. I'm not going to rehash it.

Ah. So those blue lines that parallel the roads must be something else. Another item in sore need of fixing that won't ever happen. Well, doesn't really matter. I don't have the game anymore anyway since I can't download it again.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Having established the superiority of the Matrix solution for the bridge-blowing problem about as well the Law of Gravity...

That's good for a chuckle. You've never explained how it would work at all, for the excellent reason that it couldn't work, for the excellent reason that a TOAW map simply doesn't provide the information necessary to determine where the bridge would lie in most cases.

It's like me insisting I've a miracle formula for determining who is a good loan risk by looking at the sum of the digits in their social security number. I then grow increasingly vehement, and when others give up trying to reason with me, announce that I've 'established' the validity of my formula. In fact, all counter-arguments and examples demonstrating that the formula couldn't possibly work have simply been ignored.

Christ. Take up dowsing for a profession. Or buy a Ouija board and become an investment advisor. It'd all make as much sense.

...and the worst of it is that our funds do seem to be in your hands. You've actually got input into how this game is developed. It really is like discovering your investment advisor uses a Ouija board. Apparently, we're to be saddled with some inane routine that will label road/river combinations 'bridges' or 'not bridges' according to what has never been explained but must be a meaningless formula.

It has to be. There's nothing on the TOAW map that dictates where the bridge must be if a road coincides with a river for more than one hex. You can't determine where the bridge is from the information provided. It's like being told Bob and Joe were both in the room. Which one is older? You simply can't know.

[ColinWright]

I'll try saying it again.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/us_2001/ ... f_2001.pdf

See this map? See I-5? See the Sacramento River?

Now, at most TOAW scales, I-5 and the Sacramento River are going to coincide from a few hexes south of Red Bluff to about one hex above Dunsmuir. See that?

Now, where are the bridges? There's none where I-5 and the Sacramento start to coincide south of Red Bluff. None at Red Bluff. There is one a few hexes south of Redding -- not that any possible formula could determine that it was there. You might be able to predict one of the bridges north of Redding where the river splits into the Upper Sacramento and the Pit. Of course, if one assumed the road was simply always on the west bank of the Sacramento, neither would have to be. After all, 'the road' crossed the 'river' down at the Carquinez Straits. From a TOAW map, it could perfectly well be on the west bank up north of Redding.

But it isn't. It's on the east bank by that point, and actually, there are three bridges up there -- all over what could only be described as 'super river.' One where it recrosses the Sacramento immediately before it splits and two others where it crosses and recrosses what is now the Upper Sacramento yet again to once again resume station on the west bank. What's more, these crossings are quite a distance apart -- in two different hexes at most scales. Then there's another crossing up by Dunsmuir -- not, incidentally, in the hex north of there where the river finally disappears. How would you decide that there was one there but not one down south of Red Bluff? How would it be placed in Dunsmuir itself rather than the hex north of town? How are you going to detect that there is not zero, not one, but three major crossings north of Redding? How are you going to detect the crossing south of Redding at all?

Whatever this unspecified 'matrix' of yours consists of, it simply cannot pick out bridges with any useful degree of consistency. It is -- necessarily -- pernicious nonsense. We're better off with what we've got.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Depends upon how much the river meanders. They don't really move in straight lines right on the hex grid. But, this has been discussed to death. I'm not going to rehash it.

Please refer to bottom line of sig.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

So then you'll also fix the problem where a unit has to pay river crossing costs even if it doesn't cross the river, yes? Simply moving parllel to a river costs the same as if you crossed it. If you're going to clean it up might as well clean it all up or not at all. [;)]

Also, you don't move "parallel" to the river. You move upon the river. So the game can't know if you cross it or not.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

You've never explained how it would work at all, ..

I've explained it over and over. I just can't seem to translate it into whatever passes for logic in the loony-toon world you live in - assuming you actually believe the nonsense you're posting and not just hopelessly trying to save face.

The good news is that Ralph is logical. Has to be to program.

[Curtis Lemay]

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.

This little map is all the argument I need.

It's really this simple: The matrix would limit the bridges to Duren and Julich. Without it, all road/river hexes can be blown.

Colin, bufoonishly, would have us believe that we would be better off with the latter. Whether it's because he's dimwitted or just too stubborn to admit he's wrong, I don't care.

The matrix can be made optional if there are some weird scenarios it would harm, but it addresses the original problem the best. And it's very easy to program. QED.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I'll try saying it again.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/us_2001/ ... f_2001.pdf

See this map? See I-5? See the Sacramento River?

Now, at most TOAW scales, I-5 and the Sacramento River are going to coincide from a few hexes south of Red Bluff to about one hex above Dunsmuir. See that?

Now, where are the bridges? There's none where I-5 and the Sacramento start to coincide south of Red Bluff. None at Red Bluff. There is one a few hexes south of Redding -- not that any possible formula could determine that it was there. You might be able to predict one of the bridges north of Redding where the river splits into the Upper Sacramento and the Pit. Of course, if one assumed the road was simply always on the west bank of the Sacramento, neither would have to be. After all, 'the road' crossed the 'river' down at the Carquinez Straits. From a TOAW map, it could perfectly well be on the west bank up north of Redding.

But it isn't. It's on the east bank by that point, and actually, there are three bridges up there -- all over what could only be described as 'super river.' One where it recrosses the Sacramento immediately before it splits and two others where it crosses and recrosses what is now the Upper Sacramento yet again to once again resume station on the west bank. What's more, these crossings are quite a distance apart -- in two different hexes at most scales. Then there's another crossing up by Dunsmuir -- not, incidentally, in the hex north of there where the river finally disappears. How would you decide that there was one there but not one down south of Red Bluff? How would it be placed in Dunsmuir itself rather than the hex north of town? How are you going to detect that there is not zero, not one, but three major crossings north of Redding? How are you going to detect the crossing south of Redding at all?

Whatever this unspecified 'matrix' of yours consists of, it simply cannot pick out bridges with any useful degree of consistency. It is -- necessarily -- pernicious nonsense. We're better off with what we've got.

Again, this assumes the map maker was oblivious to where his road hexes crossed his river hexes. He would not have been. Even in those rare cases where he really was, the matrix could be optional.

Or, if it is a future map, he will be fully empowered to make his roads cross the rivers wherever he needs them to. And that design requirement of enforcing visual confirmation of a bridge will be a good thing for players.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Depends upon how much the river meanders. They don't really move in straight lines right on the hex grid. But, this has been discussed to death. I'm not going to rehash it.

Please refer to bottom line of sig.

I'm just saying that I've said my piece about river hexsides and haven't anything else to add. You guys can knock yourselves out, though.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



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

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

This little map is all the argument I need.

It's really this simple: The matrix would limit the bridges to Duren and Julich. Without it, all road/river hexes can be blown.

And that wouldn't be necessarily correct. There's no particular reason there couldn't be a bridge in one of the hexes in between. In the examples I've discussed, there are several such bridges. Roads don't obligingly stay on the same side of the river until they swerve completely away. They cross back and forth all the time if the terrain requires it.

Colin, bufoonishly, would have us believe that we would be better off with the latter. Whether it's because he's dimwitted or just too stubborn to admit he's wrong, I don't care.

The matrix can be made optional if there are some weird scenarios it would harm, but it addresses the original problem the best. And it's very easy to program. QED.

That map is about all you have -- and even it doesn't present an irrefutable argument.

Like, I take it you think there's a bridge in Julich, but not one in the hex immediately to the southeast. Or is it the other way around?

From the map, no way of telling. If that road's on the east bank, it's in Julich. If it's on the west bank, it would be in the square to the southeast.

Indeed, that's a densely populated part of the world. Perhaps roads run down both banks, and there's no bridge at all.

Take the Lower Thames, for example. In 1930 or so, certainly roads running down both banks all the way to Tilbury and Gravesend. Branching off both ways as well.

All bridge hexes? Some of them? No. None of them.

No crossing. Not below London.

An OPART map doesn't tell you which bank a road is on, and so you have no way of knowing where a bridge is or isn't. You don't know. You can't. I think this is obvious to everyone but you. 'QED indeed.' What a laugh. There is a buffoon here alright, but it's not me.

...look, at some point that little light will go off. It has to. When it does, you don't have to apologize. Just quietly drop it.

But I will note one thing. You said I was either dimwitted or stubborn. Given the facts of the situation, what would be appropriate words to describe you at this point?

You think of 'em. Consider me to have posted them in block caps.