Question for Bill about "Across penalty" combat

[welk]

Due to the fact rivers, streams, etc are never on hedge of hex, situation of attack "across" river, stream, etc does never exist in game

across.jpg (230.29 KiB) Viewed 349 times

Then, I suppose that the word "Across" does mean :

1/ If unit does attack from a river, stream, etc
or
2/ If a unit attack an hex that does contain river, stream, etc

Please, what is the right and the wrong supposition ? I suppose 1/ is right but would better to be sure

If 1/ is right, this general attack penalty (depending of what type of units does attack but not depending of what unit types that is attacked) would come in addition of the "defense penalty bonus" in PENALTIES/BONUSES DATA (this last "defense penalty bonus" having a more detailled application field = depending of unit types that does attack and depending of what unit type is attacked) = is it right ?

2Defense.jpg (167.67 KiB) Viewed 346 times

[rmelvin]

I thought I notice something odd about this subject.
I do not know it was me or the game.
Strong Infantry failed to stop Armor from crossing a major river.

[BillRunacre]

Due to the fact rivers, streams, etc are never on hedge of hex, situation of attack "across" river, stream, etc does never exist in game

This is not correct. Rivers are always on the edges of a hex, and never in the middle of a hex.

[welk]

There is something I do not understand

Ok, you are right in the appearence, rivers are effectivly not in middle of hex

But it's just an appearence, a tip that have been used by our (great) diabolic Hubert , a magician's trick


If you examine things in details, you see that each time, rivers and stream are never between hex, they are always on a hexagon

across rivers.png (2.58 MiB) Viewed 298 times

Example :
On attached image, hex N° 1 and Hex N°2 seems in appearence have a river between them. But it's just an appearence : in reality, hex N1 has a river and Hex N° 2 has no any river (Hex N° 1 and hex N°2 are not separated by a river on their edge, the river is only on hex N°1)


If a unit in hex N°1 attacks a unit that is in hex N°2, it seems that unit attack across a river but it's wrong : the unit does just attack from a hex where there is a river to a hex where there is not any river

If a unit in hex N°2 attack a unit that is in hex N°1, it seems that unit does attack across river, but in fact, this units does attack an hex with river from an hex without any river

And same for 3,4,5,5,6 and 7 etc on the attached image

So, the question is :

1/ If a unit in Hex N°1 does attack a unit in hex N°2, is this attack concerned by the penalty ? (the unit does attack from an hex with river a unit that is on a hex without any river.).
-------------------
2/ If a unit in hex N°2 does attack a unit in hex N°1, is this attack concerned by the penalty ? (the unit does attack from a hex without any river a unit that is on a hex with a river)..

If "yes" in the 2 cases, it means that the only condition to apply the penalty is that : "there must be a river on the hex that is attacked or a river on the hex from where attack is lunched"

If "yes" only in one of the 2 cases (Case 1/ or Case 2/) and "not" on the other case : there is a fail in logic, because the 2 attacks are in appearence made "across river"

In other words, my question could be written like that : When can we consider that there is a attack across river ? (what are the conditions that authorize player to consider he is making an attack across a river ?)

[rmelvin]

Sound like a river hex situation. Where the whole hex is "River Hex"
Create whole lot of odd problems.

The picture is me on a M110 8" SP in the Nam.

[welk]

Yes, you're right : in this case, the program would consider that for his "decision" to apply or not the penalty :
1°/ "a couple of hex is a "river couple" if one of the 2 hex has a river on, and if the river is along his edge near of the other hex"
2°/ If the attacking unit and the attacked unit are the both on same "river couple", the penalty does apply

But would be better to be sure to avoid to do errors in editor

[welk]

Another formulation could be that : "There is attack across a river when a unit does attack from a hex with river or does attack to an hex with river"


Would be good if Bill could give some infos about this, to clear the question :

1/ If a unit in Hex N°1 does attack a unit in hex N°2, is this attack concerned by the penalty ? (the unit does attack from an hex with river a unit that is on a hex without any river.).
-------------------
2/ If a unit in hex N°2 does attack a unit in hex N°1, is this attack concerned by the penalty ? (the unit does attack from a hex without any river a unit that is on a hex with a river)..

across rivers.png (2.58 MiB) Viewed 209 times

[BillRunacre]

The best way to see things in practice will be to place lots of units from opposing sides along the river, and when you hover over them as if to attack each other, see which ones have an "across river combat penalty" display as part of the combat predictions in the bottom central panel, and which ones don't.

[welk]

Thanks, I had not noticed this little symbol (in fact, I erased it during modding work on files and I had forgotten it)

I tested with : the system is full logic, it's what I though :
An attack is "attack across river" only when 2 conditions are present :
First needed condition : Attacking unit is on a hex with riveror attacked unit is on a hex with river
Second needed condition : The river of "attacking" hex is near the edge of "attacked" hex or the river of attacked hex is near the edge of attacking hex

It's interessant to know that, because if you replace some graphisms of rivers by another new modded graphs, you may create a very usefull penalty combat effect (example : oriented defensive minesfield, etc), this special penalty may come in addition of a defensive position bonus