Comprehensive Wishlist

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

It would, however, pick a development choice that would further restrict designers...

What?? Now, today, if you want to use bridge blowing to represent road destruction you must put a river in the hex. This would not change that at all.

You would make it so that even if there was a river in the hex, the bridge wouldn't necessarily be destructible. That is a further restriction. No doubt.

...and you'd do it as a result of some fatally flawed thinking. See above.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

1. Bridges can only be repaired by engineers. Not so for roads.

Now (and for example, I simply to don't have the time to deal with each successive claim you make) this statement is simply and completely untrue.

It is completely true.

You're trying to create a distinction between bridges blown over militarily significant rivers and other forms of obstruction that simply isn't there. If I use a few sticks of dynamite to bring down a landslide on your road winding down an escarpment, you've got an engineering problem fully as formidable as if I've blasted the bridge over the Eel River at Three Forks.

No. It is not even an engineering problem at all, anymore that repairing a rail line is an engineering problem (how does the game handle that? Not with engineers). It could even be solved by manual labor. But any heavy equipment or explosives would be better. Building a bridge is real engineering. Repairing a road is not.

And, back to mines for a sec: They don't actually render the road impassable. Rather, they cause casualties (that's usually how you find out the road is mined). You can still use the road if you are willing to accept the losses.

And, regardless, the effort to build a bridge and the effort to clear a road of obstructions/mines are unrelated. They need separate treatment.

What's more, I just thought of something. You don't even know where there's a 'bridge.' What if we've got a north-south flowing river? The road comes in from the non-river hex to the southwest, runs north along the river for three hexes, and exits to the northeast.

Where's the bridge? Did the road come in, run along the west bank of the river for the first two hexes, and cross over in the third hex it shared with the river? Maybe it comes in, immediately crosses to the east bank on account of cliffs on the west bank, runs north for a bit, then crosses back over on account of cliffs on the east bank, and finally crosses back to the east bank again to make its exit.

Where's the bridge? In the first hex? The second? All three? You don't know. The 'matrix' is meaningless. The only case you can know with any certainty where the 'bridge' is or isn't is when the road shares the hex with the river for exactly one hex -- and the program already lets you blow it in that case.

The bridge is wherever the road crosses the river. And the TOAW map designer is fully able to make it do so for any of the options you listed.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

You would make it so that even if there was a river in the hex, the bridge wouldn't necessarily be destructible. That is a further restriction. No doubt.

Only if the designer was an idiot. Non-idiot designers would, of course, use a river pattern that would be blowable.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Go ahead and count major bridges down Highway One from Newport, Oregon to San Francisco, California. You'll have to have a 'river' in each hex.

Then it sounds appropriate. What's the issue?

I want to clarify this answer. It would only be appropriate if blowing those major bridges would make the road impassable. If all it would do is keep you from doing 75mph then they wouldn't be modeled. Military columns don't do 75mph. So, if they have to shift to the grass for a bit and wallow through a ditch, that won't be a significant delay.

[Curtis Lemay]

And, just to recap: Even if it were true that bridge blowing/repair was identical to road damage/clearing (which it obviously isn't), there are still these two facts:

1. The matrix fix is trivial to program. All other options are non-trivial.
2. The benefits of the matrix fix would be enjoyed by all scenarios. All other options would only affect a small fraction of scenarios.

[ColinWright]

God help us.  He might even promote this 'matrix.' 

He actually thinks it has some connection with reality -- that he can tell from the TOAW map where the bridge is.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

And, just to recap: Even if it were true that bridge blowing/repair was identical to road damage/clearing (which it obviously isn't), there are still these two facts:

1. The matrix fix is trivial to program. All other options are non-trivial.
2. The benefits of the matrix fix would be enjoyed by all scenarios. All other options would only affect a small fraction of scenarios.

It may well be trivial to program. However (as carefully explained) it offers no benefits whatsoever. It merely (and entirely arbitrarily) labels some road/river hexes 'bridges' and others not.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Go ahead and count major bridges down Highway One from Newport, Oregon to San Francisco, California. You'll have to have a 'river' in each hex.

Then it sounds appropriate. What's the issue?

I want to clarify this answer. It would only be appropriate if blowing those major bridges would make the road impassable. If all it would do is keep you from doing 75mph then they wouldn't be modeled. Military columns don't do 75mph. So, if they have to shift to the grass for a bit and wallow through a ditch, that won't be a significant delay.

Thomas Creek, in Oregon, is short. It also, as the name implies, doesn't carry much water. I doubt if one would want to put it on the map -- not unless one wants to make every hex up and down the Oregon coast riverine.

So blowing the bridge over the creek, of course, wouldn't make the road impassable. Fortunately, since in TOAW, except at the smallest scales, one would hardly want to make the entire hex a river.

But that's okay, because, since there's no river to represent, there's no bridge.

Gentlemen, I give you the highest highway bridge in America.



Go ahead. Shift to the grass for a bit and wallow through that ditch.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

You would make it so that even if there was a river in the hex, the bridge wouldn't necessarily be destructible. That is a further restriction. No doubt.

Only if the designer was an idiot. Non-idiot designers would, of course, use a river pattern that would be blowable.

Of course, there are those poor idiots who already wrote their scenarios without realizing you were going to create this 'matrix' in the future.

This matrix, that through some mysterious power I'd love to hear you explain, can determine where along a stretch of road running along a river the bridge(s) lie.

Maybe it works something like a dowsing rod. That it, Curtis?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

1. Bridges can only be repaired by engineers. Not so for roads.

Now (and for example, I simply to don't have the time to deal with each successive claim you make) this statement is simply and completely untrue.

It is completely true.

You're trying to create a distinction between bridges blown over militarily significant rivers and other forms of obstruction that simply isn't there. If I use a few sticks of dynamite to bring down a landslide on your road winding down an escarpment, you've got an engineering problem fully as formidable as if I've blasted the bridge over the Eel River at Three Forks.

No. It is not even an engineering problem at all, anymore that repairing a rail line is an engineering problem (how does the game handle that? Not with engineers). It could even be solved by manual labor. But any heavy equipment or explosives would be better. Building a bridge is real engineering. Repairing a road is not.

You do realize you're simply ignoring reality, don't you?

Actually, that's a tad unfair. However, you are distorting reality so that you can 'win' the argument. Since you've adopted an otherwise indefensible position, a whole lot of distortion's going to be needed.

Read any detailed campaign history. It is indeed the engineers who clear obstructions -- of any kind. Bridges that have been blown over rivers that are otherwise significant military obstacles. Bridges over rivers that aren't. Bridges that cross after the road has already been running along the bank for twenty kilometers. Mined roads. Roads that have had the cliff side under them blown out. Roads that have been artificially flooded.

Whatever. Whatever you may claim.

If a road winds its way down a cliff side, and I blow a chunk out of it, you're going to need an engineer. No foolin'.

But these points have already been made. You simply trample them underfoot so that you can 'win' the argument.

...and 'win' on behalf of this 'matrix' -- which you refuse to recognize does nothing more than just arbitrarily name some hexes 'bridges' and others not.

You might as well ordain that only roads on rivers in even-numbered hexes can be blown. That would be just as reasonable -- and a hell of a lot easier on the designer.

[ColinWright]

No 'bridge' -- but if I blow a piece out of this, you're going to need the engineers.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


What's more, I just thought of something. You don't even know where there's a 'bridge.' What if we've got a north-south flowing river? The road comes in from the non-river hex to the southwest, runs north along the river for three hexes, and exits to the northeast.

Where's the bridge? Did the road come in, run along the west bank of the river for the first two hexes, and cross over in the third hex it shared with the river? Maybe it comes in, immediately crosses to the east bank on account of cliffs on the west bank, runs north for a bit, then crosses back over on account of cliffs on the east bank, and finally crosses back to the east bank again to make its exit.

Where's the bridge? In the first hex? The second? All three? You don't know. The 'matrix' is meaningless. The only case you can know with any certainty where the 'bridge' is or isn't is when the road shares the hex with the river for exactly one hex -- and the program already lets you blow it in that case.

Take I-70 running down the Colorado. All kinds of opportunities for demolition that have nothing to do with crossing the river, but never mind that. The river comes in from the north, so at some point, you are on the south bank. Then you're running down the north bank, so you must have crossed at least once. Then a while later you're on the south bank again. Finally, you come turn away from the river at Grand Junction -- but you've been on the north bank for some time again by that point. Certainly no crossing -- on the interstate -- at Grand Junction itself.

Where are the crossings? There are at least three of them -- but where? A TOAW map wouldn't tell you -- and your 'matrix' won't detect them either. It would put at least one where it's not -- at Grand Junction -- and miss at least two of the others.

I find this the most convincing argument against Bob's proposed Matrix.

[Panama]

Going from Sioux City, Iowa to St. Joseph, Missouri on I-29 you parallel the Missouri River for 228 miles. All on the east bank. The highway never crosses the river. If this were portrayed on a TOAW map every hex along the entire 228 miles could be blown up. Why? There are some small bridges over creeks and small rivers but all 50 yards or less. Not an engineering problem. All can be bridged in an hour easily. This is one of the problems with the way TOAW portrays rivers and bridge blowing.

As far as blowing up roads, military traffic on a road will do as much damage as blowing up the road except in very rough terrain. Armies have road units to fix stuff up.

BTW. That highway on the cliff. You wouldn't want to blow the stuff up above it. Could just scrape it off. Blow up the stuff below it. Take forever to fix that. [:D]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

It may well be trivial to program. However (as carefully explained) it offers no benefits whatsoever. It merely (and entirely arbitrarily) labels some road/river hexes 'bridges' and others not.

No, it is not arbitrary at all. It puts the bridge right where the map designer made the road cross the river. It simply assumes that his choice for that was intentional. And, that's exactly what any rational map designer would do. You want the map to look correct. If the road doesn't cross the river where it should then it will look wrong to players. So, map designers want to make their maps look right, and that means that they will be (and will have been) compelled to make the road cross the river at the right places.

Your artificially-fabricated complaints are sure to be very rare if any exist at all.

I'll repeat here what I said in post 1436:

Any feature can be made optional. But, it comes with an expense in coding time, making the code unmanageble, and making players confused with all the rules options. So, cost/benefit desisions have to be made. Common sense should tell us that very few if any scenarios want roads running parallel to rivers to be blown. So, while the matrix idea could be made optional, I would advise against it. If some designer comes squawking afterwards about it, perhaps it could be made optional later.

Clearly, we can't make every feature of TOAW optional. And, just as clearly, we can't let minute risks of affecting previous scenarios shortcircuit every improvement. Now, if there were a known suite of scenarios that would be adversely affected, that's another thing. But this isn't one of those situations.

If the matrix were an optional rule, then all your complaints would be wiped out. And it would still help virtually every scenario ever designed, if not all of them. In all probability, if it is implemented it will be as an optional rule. That will make it a little more of a coding task, but not much.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Thomas Creek, in Oregon, is short. It also, as the name implies, doesn't carry much water. I doubt if one would want to put it on the map -- not unless one wants to make every hex up and down the Oregon coast riverine.

So blowing the bridge over the creek, of course, wouldn't make the road impassable. Fortunately, since in TOAW, except at the smallest scales, one would hardly want to make the entire hex a river.

But that's okay, because, since there's no river to represent, there's no bridge.

Gentlemen, I give you the highest highway bridge in America.



Go ahead. Shift to the grass for a bit and wallow through that ditch.

I don't see the issue here. What's wrong with putting a minor river in the hex? Add a couple of major escarpments on both sides and you're set.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Read any detailed campaign history. It is indeed the engineers who clear obstructions -- of any kind.

Obstructions like trees or rocks can be cleared by any warm bodies. That's just a fact. Furthermore, they are only obstructions to vehicles. Foot units wouldn't be impeded.

Bridges that have been blown over rivers that are otherwise significant military obstacles.

Of course. TOAW handles that now. Although it would be nice if there were some consideration of the differences between major and minor river bridges. But we can't further refine bridges if we amalgamate them with roads.

Bridges over rivers that aren't.

Then why depict it?

Bridges that cross after the road has already been running along the bank for twenty kilometers.

So what? It's a bridge.

Mined roads.

Engineers may be better at it, but other, non-engineer units can and do remove mines. And the differences between mines and blown bridges are huge.

Roads that have had the cliff side under them blown out. Roads that have been artificially flooded.

If a road winds its way down a cliff side, and I blow a chunk out of it, you're going to need an engineer. No foolin'.

Good candidates for putting a river in their hexes. What would be the issue with that solution?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Going from Sioux City, Iowa to St. Joseph, Missouri on I-29 you parallel the Missouri River for 228 miles. All on the east bank. The highway never crosses the river. If this were portrayed on a TOAW map every hex along the entire 228 miles could be blown up. Why? There are some small bridges over creeks and small rivers but all 50 yards or less. Not an engineering problem. All can be bridged in an hour easily. This is one of the problems with the way TOAW portrays rivers and bridge blowing.

Just what the matrix would fix.

[macgregor]

This argument is fascinating, mostly because of it's length. Cannot scenario designers decide what can get blown or not by choosing to place bridges or not? Is that what the argument is about? Not enough detail on something as already detailed as this is? But the focus expended is really incredible! I'm laughing until I cry.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

This argument is fascinating, mostly because of it's length. Cannot scenario designers decide what can get blown or not by choosing to place bridges or not? Is that what the argument is about? Not enough detail on something as already detailed as this is? But the focus expended is really incredible! I'm laughing until I cry.

Yeah. I think I'll declare victory and leave.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Panama

Going from Sioux City, Iowa to St. Joseph, Missouri on I-29 you parallel the Missouri River for 228 miles. All on the east bank. The highway never crosses the river. If this were portrayed on a TOAW map every hex along the entire 228 miles could be blown up. Why? There are some small bridges over creeks and small rivers but all 50 yards or less. Not an engineering problem. All can be bridged in an hour easily. This is one of the problems with the way TOAW portrays rivers and bridge blowing.

Just what the matrix would fix.

I don't know about the matrix. I saw the movie.

Why not just code the game so if a road or rail did not have a bridge it can't be blown up? Or if you want road destruction have a road block feature much as a blown bridge. Both can be repaired by engineers.

I really can't imagine regular units blowing up roads. Engineers yes, line units, no. But supply trucks and tracked vehicles do a wonderful job of destroying roads. [:D]

Not really sure if you guys discussed these. Too much reading for my blood. [;)]