ORIGINAL: IronDuke
All forces will be neatly on one side until someone attacks across it, which is exactly the poiint, you don't have to attack across it currently to achieve that "mixed" status.
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Regardless of how, they will tend to be mixed. Think of it this way: Everything you can see in the operational macro sense on the TOAW map can also be occurring internal to the hex in the tactical micro sense.
That is the entire point,
they simply will not and indeed can not be mixed until someone attempts a crossing. Whether tactically, strategically, operationally or hillbillywilly, forces aren't mixed if they are on separate sides of the river. Trying to see things in this "macro operational" sense is just smoke and mirrors because the river provides a barrier between any interaction on whatever scale you want.
In your "macro operational" sense, you enter the river hex and are teleported instantly across the river even if you have no amphibious abilities or engineers available. Your entire Unit (at the "macro operational" scale sometimes a Corp strong) makes this miraculous journey and once across the river becomes vulnerable to counteratttack.
However, (and here's the fun bit) having entered the hex and having magically gotten across the river without the aid of engineers, our "macro operational" Wunder swimmers cross back to their own side in order to make a full scale assault. How else can we explain having to cross the river to attack the enemy but already be across it if the enemy attack you first?
It simply makes no sense. The only think making less sense are the attempts to defend it (with respect).
Would you like some examples of where everyone was on one side or the other until the pre-requisite mentioned above?
I'm sure there were cases of that. It doesn't change that they were exceptions.
Exceptions to what? I said everyone was on their own sides of the river until an assault crossing.
Semantically here, you're suggesting that (but for exceptions as yet unspecified) everyone was on one side or the other until the assault crossing. What exceptions? the only ones I can think of are where units flew over the river and parachuted onto the other side. this is catered for separately within the rules.
How can their be exceptions to this? Please name one so we can explore the mechanics.
What distortion?
Seriously, you actually think that if you threw a hexgrid over a map, all the rivers would fall on the hexsides?
No, of course not, but then single hills don't cover 50 square kilometres as they do on large scale maps for all intents and purposes. Since when have the maps been anything over than rough approximations? Why can we approximate everything except this.
Or let me turn the question around? Do you believe all rivers fall neatly in the middle of hexes?
But one minute you're telling us everyone is on both sides, then rivers are operationally underrated, then the scale we are operating at makes rivers not operationally all that much, but now we have to have rivers meandering through hexes so we can cater for "bends" which is about as micro and tactical as it gets. You surely can't expect to have it both ways.
Neither can you. Neither method models all the tactical considerations.
But one does. River hex sides put you on one side or the other until you use movement or aggressive action to get across.
How is this different in any way to reality?
Well, with the greatest of respect, you're starting to make this stuff up. The Rhine was easily crossed because the Germans didn't have the necessary forces to defend it. Are you suggesting the Rhine would have been easily crossed in numerous places if 500 000 more Germans had been emplaced behind it?
I made up the fact that the Rhine was easily crossed in multiple places in 1945? I don't think so.
Disingenuous (because you can't have misunderstood my point). What you made up was the cause of the effect. The Allies did get across in numerous places, but it had nothing to do with rivers being poor military obstacles, and everything to do with relative combat power.
Rivers are about as significant as it gets. If they weren't why does everybody generally seek the safety of any available banks when choosing where to defend?
With respect, you've very wrong.
I would say that Norm seems to agree with me. The defense factor for rivers is only a 30% reduction in attacker strength. Far less than, say, hills or towns.
Someone else has already disagreed with you, here, but without engineers you can't get across at all, supplies are poor without a bridge, I don't believe tac reserve works across a river and you're more vulnerable to counterattack than anywhere ese. Rivers are not just about the initial assault, TOAW models the rest of it as well.
What cost benefit concerns?
I listed the cost concerns. In fact, I underrated them. It's since occurred to me that they're higher than I thought. Bridge blowing would erase the roads in two hexes.
But the roads wouldn't actually be going anywhere anyway would they since you'd blown the bridge. Besides, see below, we're having a Paradigm shift apparently, so why don't we just come up with dynamic hex sides. We could use the same coding to have better obstacles and fortifications in long term scenarios.
The "Bridge Destroyed" tiles we just made would have to be re-done.
Well, we can't have that, dysfunctional river hexes it is then.
And TOAW doesn't actually have any true "hexside" features. What it does have are features that fall next to the hexside, but within the hex. To do true hexside features will require a paradigm shift.
A paradigm shift? With respect, we're tinkering with a war game, not ditching Adam and Eve for Darwin.
Just have a bridge hexside feature on both sides "next to the hexside, but within the hex".
And what are the benefits? Here it is: A 0.7 combat multiplier will be slightly revised as to where it is applied. And this won't impact a single existing scenario. It can only affect some future scenario yet to be constructed.
Incorrect. A 0.7 multiplier will be correctly applied; units on their own side of the river will not be attacked by the full weight of the enemy without the enemy paying the 0.7 muliplier factor. Units will not have to hold bridge hexes in exposed positions in order to prevent the enemy rebuilding it. Disengaging will be easier, units will not teleport across with Starfleet assistance;
The argument there are more important considerations I can accept, the argument "things should stay as they are because I like the look better" I can't and won't.
Even the first argument rings a little hollow to me given the real important considerations are yet to be considered, but plenty of less important ones already have.
Respect and regards,
IronDuke
