Why are rivers in the middle of hexes rather than the hex edges?

[Xenomorph]

I know it may be nit-picking but this is something that's longed bothered me about this brilliant game. I find it often confusing as to which side of the river a unit is on. I was wondering if someone could explain the philosophy behind that game feature. Thanks!

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: Xenomorph

I know it may be nit-picking but this is something that's longed bothered me about this brilliant game. I find it often confusing as to which side of the river a unit is on. I was wondering if someone could explain the philosophy behind that game feature. Thanks!

Here's the answer from the creator of creators, Norm himself:

Rivers run through the hex (I thought this obsolete design concept went away a long time ago). Marsh has only an anti-armor multiplier effect.

Rivers are not infinitely thin, like some kind of abstract geometric concept. They take up real space. The choice of hex side vs. through-hex is strictly a matter of personal preference, and which set of distortions we wish to live with. There is also the matter of graphic representation. I've yet to see a hex side river graphic that doesn't highlight the hex grid, and there are quite a few gamers out there who really don't want to see "hexes".

In TOAW II we have riverine units, something that was originally planned for TOAW I but dropped after scenario designers couldn't think of any real need for it in the pre 1956 time frame. Some Vietnam scenarios in TOAW II would be a practically impossible with hex side rivers.

http://normkoger.com/truth.html

Klink, Oberst

[Josh]

That may be Norm's answer to it, I have to disagree with him. TOAW is one of the very very few games with rivers midhex and since this was invented it has *always* baffled players.
Matter of fact the question Xenomorph posted could have been posted 10 years ago as well, it *is* confusing and always *will* be confusing.
Making rivers midhex was a valid consideration (as in how do you display rivers?) when TOAW was made back in the day... but some gameconcept just fail, and IMHO this is one of them.
Having said that I guess most TOAW players learned to live with it. [:D]

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: Josh

That may be Norm's answer to it, I have to disagree with him. TOAW is one of the very very few games with rivers midhex and since this was invented it has *always* baffled players.
Matter of fact the question Xenomorph posted could have been posted 10 years ago as well, it *is* confusing and always *will* be confusing.
Making rivers midhex was a valid consideration (as in how do you display rivers?) when TOAW was made back in the day... but some gameconcept just fail, and IMHO this is one of them.
Having said that I guess most TOAW players learned to live with it. [:D]

Well, what to say, alter Holländer? It is a pain as such as parallel roads are treated as bridges and can be blown up; that's what bugs me about the mid-hex river thing

Klink, Oberst

[Falcon1]

I always think of it as the river is not just running through the hex, but the whole hex is a "river hex". So if you are in that hex, you are considered in (or closely around) the river. If I'm not mistaken, the game gives disadvantages to being in the river hex, correct? For instance, if you are attacking out of a river hex, there is a penalty. But maybe I am wrong about that. But I guess this interpretation doesn't make sense with hexes that represent many miles.

[Lobster]

If you are playing against someone who is so lame as to blow up roads that follow rivers then it's time to get a different opponent.

Hex sides or through the hex, good and bad for both methods. Rivers have wetlands, steep banks, sandy or muddy expanses, cities and towns on one side or both sides, extensive networks of ravines and many other physical characteristics that are of military significance that can't be properly modeled by one method or the other.

Also, with TOAW, one hex can be 2.5km to 50km, six hours to a week. Big difference in how a river would affect one scale over the other.

IMHO it's a toss up.

[Falcon1]

If I had to vote, I would say I prefer the rivers to follow the edge of the hex.

[Freyr Oakenshield]

IMO, the best solution would be to implement both kinds of rivers (BOTH through-hex AND hex side), and leave the decision as to which one to use to the scenario designer. He or she would decide which kind of river hex makes more sense in the scenario, depending on various factors such as scale, the presence or absence of riverine units, and so on.

[Freyr Oakenshield]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

If you are playing against someone who is so lame as to blow up roads that follow rivers then it's time to get a different opponent.

This is not always so lame as you might think. As you wrote in your post, the geographical and infrastructure features represented in the game are often quite complex. One could easily imagine the arrangement of a river and road WITHIN ONE hex that I show in the attached pic.

Of course, due to some editor limitations, it can't be represented within a single hex the way the pic shows. But it's good to bear in mind that "roads following rivers" is a certain simplification of reality. "roads following rivers" can actually represent the situation shown in the pic below. If this is so, blowing such roads is quite legitimate, IMO.

As usual, it's good to set some house rules before the game starts regarding this issue. But there's nothing inherently lame or wrong in blowing "roads following rivers."

[Xenomorph]

Well, I'm pleased to hear it's not just me anyway. I find the level of thought built into this game extraordinary but I really don't like the midline rivers and wish they'd change it. Especially if was just an aesthetic choice. I've seen plenty of games where the rivers follow the gridlines but are still great looking maps. Reading the responses here it seems the way rivers are currently depicted may be needlessly confusing. I'll mention that I've tried teaching the game to others and it can be aggravating on both sides bc newbies really have a hard time understanding the rivers. They park their troops on the wrong hex and often want to do the turn over dt the confusion. Which of course we do but in doing so we've both gained some intel. I know it's kept them from buying the game themselves. My 2 cents. Thanks!

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Freyr Oakenshield

IMO, the best solution would be to implement both kinds of rivers (BOTH through-hex AND hex side), and leave the decision as to which one to use to the scenario designer. He or she would decide which kind of river hex makes more sense in the scenario, depending on various factors such as scale, the presence or absence of riverine units, and so on.

I am not particularly against one choice or another once you know the rules. But, one important thing is that the huge scenario database of this game will have to be reworked in TOAW 4.0 if you would like to change this. The above solution may be the best indeed.