Range increments don't match map scale

[Lobster]

Yes, some of the lines are missing in the manual description. I wondered about that too. Checking the 'What's New' now.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

The range given in hexes is surely not the amount of (empty)hexes between the units.

That's exactly what it is. The front lines must be assumed to be at the forward edges of the hexes by the game. Assuming the units are positioned in the exact center of the hexes would obviously be presumptuous.

So, the only place I've found this mentioned is in the 'What's New' document under APPENDIX ONE: NAVAL COMBAT PROCEDURE. Is that when this was introduced?:

Note that Range is the number of hexes between the attacker and defender – not including their hexes – times the hex scale in kms. So adjacent combat would be point-blank range (=0). However, in that adjacent case, there is a random check as follows:

Range = random (minimum (max range of all units involved, hexscale/2)

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

When you start pretending a unit is in a particular place in a hex then you start plunging into the world of craziness. Center of the hex to center of the hex eliminates all of the pretend craziness. But like Steve said, more programming and with a little crew the bugs are escaping. But I think people really need to informed of this little nugget. There are an insane number of things like this that should be in the manual or at the very least an addendum.

So, in other words, if two units are adjacent to each other then the "no man's land" between them is an average of 10km wide! And units are bunched together in a point within the hex!

Of course that is absurd. No man's land was no wider than sniper range - a few hundred yards. Units have to be thought of as snug against the hexsides.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster

When you start pretending a unit is in a particular place in a hex then you start plunging into the world of craziness. Center of the hex to center of the hex eliminates all of the pretend craziness. But like Steve said, more programming and with a little crew the bugs are escaping. But I think people really need to informed of this little nugget. There are an insane number of things like this that should be in the manual or at the very least an addendum.

So, in other words, if two units are adjacent to each other then the "no man's land" between them is an average of 10km wide! And units are bunched together in a point within the hex!

Of course that is absurd. No man's land was no wider than sniper range - a few hundred yards. Units have to be thought of as snug against the hexsides.

We are actually talking about artillery. I thought.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

The range given in hexes is surely not the amount of (empty)hexes between the units.

That's exactly what it is. The front lines must be assumed to be at the forward edges of the hexes by the game. Assuming the units are positioned in the exact center of the hexes would obviously be presumptuous.

So, the only place I've found this mentioned is in the 'What's New' document under APPENDIX ONE: NAVAL COMBAT PROCEDURE. Is that when this was introduced?:

Note that Range is the number of hexes between the attacker and defender – not including their hexes – times the hex scale in kms. So adjacent combat would be point-blank range (=0). However, in that adjacent case, there is a random check as follows:

Range = random (minimum (max range of all units involved, hexscale/2)

Naval combat ranges just continued the existing method for land ranges. But that is one place where it is made clear.

[Lobster]

I don't suppose we will ever get an updated manual with all of the new information and the old obscure information. Maybe someone could volunteer to do it?

[sPzAbt653]

I've made a few attempts over the years, it's quite a chore and I've lost interest quickly each time. Here is my latest thought on the matter. We need to make a new PDF, copy and paste relevant passages from the original manual, add in new rules, add in clarifications, keep the manual graphics where appropriate, eliminate fluff and repetitions where possible. It wouldn't be officially distributed by Matrix [but would need their consent due to use of original parts of the manual and consent from Bob for use of his What's New], that way it wouldn't be necessary for Bob to proof read every passage [he can if he wants and it would be nice, but we don't want to go into anything expecting it]. Someone would need to maintain it, most likely on a thread here. Everyone could suggest clarifications/additions and obviously we would have no problem reaching a consensus on all matters [;)]

So, somebody with PDF talents start a thread and let's get to it !

[Zovs]

You could make the font red or blue or something showing the new/old whatever parts. I think that WitE did this at one time or maybe it's just what I recall (vaguely).

[sPzAbt653]

It's a good idea to some extent, but how long do things stay red or blue? How do we know the last time someone read it?

I think that the main use of the manual is for new players to read and for veteran players to scan. New players won't know the difference and veterans wouldn't really care, would they? This is what I mean by getting everyone to agree [impossible]. However, if we are re-creating a new Manual, then everything would be new, so no reason to differentiate ? Also, if some folks like different colors, what would I care ? And, someone needs to accept the assignment before we start in on all of this, right [;)]

[Zovs]

Good points Steve. As long as I can Ctrl+F to find what I am looking for and I'll be good to go.

[larryfulkerson]

I don't know PDF from shinola but I'd be glad to help. I know my way around graphics ( screengrabs / AAR pictures ). And wny don't we use strikethroughs on the obselete text, maybe change the color of it too. I know a little bit about maintaining a thread, I'm looking after the new scenario submissions for the grand list. I'm teachable so let me know what you need and I'll see what I can do. Stipulation: I get to ask questions.

[larryfulkerson]

double post, sorry

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

Stipulation: I get to ask questions.[/size]

[:D]

[cathar1244]

But surely it is just as presumptuous to make these assumptions? Seems like if you have to make a presumption it would be better to presume an average value than an extreme value (both units precisely on hexsides)? -- 76mm

My opinion, it would be more obvious to count from hex center (well, we all know how far opinions go [:)] )

Modeling "reality" wouldn't be easy, as military units deploy in depth as well as breadth. But then, from what I can tell, the artillery strikes hit only a part of the target (unless the TOAW log file does not log all the combat events associated with an artillery bombardment). So, in one way, the strike is treated as if the defender is deployed in depth, and does not smother the entire unit in artillery fire.

I understand what Bob wrote, but it is less than obvious as far as how the hex range is counted.

Cheers

[larryfulkerson]

I think the TOAW IV manual ( PDF ) is found at this link:

tm.asp?m=4390994

[MikeBrough]

Counting ranges from 'front' of the attacker's hex to 'front' of the defender's hex is just about defensible, but what happens when a hex is attacked from opposite directions? Where in the hex is the defender?

Centre of attacker's hex to centre of defender's hex makes more sense and is what is used in all wargames I can remember playing.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: MikeBrough

Counting ranges from 'front' of the attacker's hex to 'front' of the defender's hex is just about defensible, but what happens when a hex is attacked from opposite directions? Where in the hex is the defender?

Centre of attacker's hex to centre of defender's hex makes more sense and is what is used in all wargames I can remember playing.

If both directions are part of the front lines for the defender, the unit would be snug against both hexsides. And, bombardments across front lines are by far the most common case.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: MikeBrough

Counting ranges from 'front' of the attacker's hex to 'front' of the defender's hex is just about defensible, but what happens when a hex is attacked from opposite directions? Where in the hex is the defender?

Centre of attacker's hex to centre of defender's hex makes more sense and is what is used in all wargames I can remember playing.

This is a hold over from TOAW volume one. If a gun had a range of 20km the unit as a whole is given a range of 3 hexes. But it didn't only count the hexes in between. It counted center of hex to center of hex. One piece of equipment has a range of 20km. The highlighted unit has a range of three but it can't reach the German units that are four hexes away.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
If both directions are part of the front lines for the defender, the unit would be snug against both hexsides.

I'll bite--why do you think that?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
If both directions are part of the front lines for the defender, the unit would be snug against both hexsides.

I'll bite--why do you think that?

See post #23.