Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Sure Curtis. You realize your statements have started to become transparently indefensible?

Take 'And, it places bridges with no more accuracy than the Matrix.' Why bother to rebut that?  

You can put a bridge anywhere you want with the Matrix rules. That's a fact. And, it will have the advantage of giving the player a natural visual cue as to where the bridge is at.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I still need to confirm that other river/canal types or the other road type or rail has the same matrix. Stay tuned.

I've made similar maps with all river/canal types and all road/rail types. Both .bmp and .png tile types as well. One matrix will suffice. There are a few hexes that could be quibbled over, but not enough to warrant a different matrix.

Now to start work on the second matrix - the one that addresses how a road allows a river hex to be crossed even though there is no bridge in the hex. That's going to be more complicated, but doable. But, note that it will only make sense if the first matrix is effected. One more reason for that (not that we needed any more).

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I still need to confirm that other river/canal types or the other road type or rail has the same matrix. Stay tuned.

I've made similar maps with all river/canal types and all road/rail types. Both .bmp and .png tile types as well. One matrix will suffice. There are a few hexes that could be quibbled over, but not enough to warrant a different matrix.

Now to start work on the second matrix - the one that addresses how a road allows a river hex to be crossed even though there is no bridge in the hex. That's going to be more complicated, but doable. But, note that it will only make sense if the first matrix is effected. One more reason for that (not that we needed any more).

Just don't ever try seeing if the Matrix puts the bridges where they are in reality. That would yield disappointing results.

I don't see what's so hard about understanding that a TOAW simply does not provide sufficient information to determine where the bridges actually are. A road enters a hex with a river in it, runs along the river for three hexes, and then exits to a non-river hex.

Nu? You simply don't have the information required to determine where the bridge is. As illustrated with the example of the Lower Thames, there may not even be a bridge. Separate roads could run along each bank (north and south bank roads are actually a pretty common feature.) That's what happens with the Lower Thames. Conversely, as with the two other rivers I am intimately familiar with, there may be several bridges -- and not necessarily in the first hex where the road and river join. Nor, for that matter, in the last.

Or maybe it crosses just once -- but in the middle hex. The first hex only? The last? None of them (as with the Lower Thames). You can't know.

This is like dealing with one of those guys who have come up with an infallible formula for picking winners at the track. Too bad it's our money you're playing with.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Stay tuned.

Almost as much fun as listening to the market crash when you've got a million in.

Curtis wrecks TOAW. Having fun, Curtis?

You know guys, this is really becoming a clouded issue. From what I can tell, and it's difficult trying to follow this with so many posts, the problem is all about blowing up non bridge roads/rails because they parallel rivers. Right? This being considered a gamey aspect because if the road doesn't cross the river you shouldn't be allowed to blow it up.

So, instead of doing the logical thing and having a 'bridge' tile set we are making a huge matrix kinda thing, no? And since the game can already check to see if a hex is 'road' or 'river' or 'rail' and can just as easily check for 'bridge' we are going to have it ignore all that and do what?

This is merely an attempt to get some clarity.

Another thing. Will map makers have to actively do something with this matrix or is it a hidden under the hood kind of thing? And why would it not be able to tell if a road crossed a river? Because if it isn't 100% accurate it's not worth the trouble.

ORIGINAL: Panama

You know guys, this is really becoming a clouded issue. From what I can tell, and it's difficult trying to follow this with so many posts, the problem is all about blowing up non bridge roads/rails because they parallel rivers. Right? This being considered a gamey aspect because if the road doesn't cross the river you shouldn't be allowed to blow it up.

So, instead of doing the logical thing and having a 'bridge' tile set we are making a huge matrix kinda thing, no? And since the game can already check to see if a hex is 'road' or 'river' or 'rail' and can just as easily check for 'bridge' we are going to have it ignore all that and do what?

This is merely an attempt to get some clarity.

Another thing. Will map makers have to actively do something with this matrix or is it a hidden under the hood kind of thing? And why would it not be able to tell if a road crossed a river? Because if it isn't 100% accurate it's not worth the trouble.

It's only clouded because Curtis is very stridently attempting to defend a very silly proposition.

I've tried to explain clearly why 'this matrix' couldn't tell if a road crossed a river. Because, in fact, if a road coincides with a river for more than one hex, you lack the information necessary to tell you where it crossed.

It really is like I come into a room and find you and Golden Delicious there. Bob Cross is lying dead on the floor.

So who killed him? The above is all the information we have or are ever going to get. So who did it? You? Golden Delicious? Both? Neither?

We don't know. We can't know -- no matter what programming routines we devise. The data to make such a determination is simply lacking. Similarly with the river thing. A TOAW map simply lacks the information we need to tell where the bridge would be if a road coincides with a river for more than one hex.

That's just the way it is -- no matter how much Curtis huffs and puffs.

This is merely an attempt to get some clarity.

I dl'd the Matrix.sce and don't get it either. Don't all those combinations need some code to tell the program whether or not there is a bridge in the hex ? Wouldn't the same thing have to be done for minor rivers, canals and major canals ?

Obviously, I'm lost. [:(]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

This is merely an attempt to get some clarity.

I dl'd the Matrix.sce and don't get it either. Don't all those combinations need some code to tell the program whether or not there is a bridge in the hex ? Wouldn't the same thing have to be done for minor rivers, canals and major canals ?

Obviously, I'm lost. [:(]

I can tell you why you're lost.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

It really is like I come into a room and find you and Golden Delicious there. Bob Cross is lying dead on the floor.

So who killed him? The above is all the information we have or are ever going to get. So who did it? You? Golden Delicious? Both? Neither?

This one is easy.

He's obviously feigning death because he saw you coming to the door and it's the only way he can avoid conversation. [:D][:D][:D]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

This is merely an attempt to get some clarity.

I dl'd the Matrix.sce and don't get it either. Don't all those combinations need some code to tell the program whether or not there is a bridge in the hex ? Wouldn't the same thing have to be done for minor rivers, canals and major canals ?

Obviously, I'm lost. [:(]

Ditto. It almost caused an epileptic seizure when I scrolled it. [X(]

This has gone on long enough.




Where does your matrix say the bridge is, Curtis?

If that matrix is going to be used will the program do a search to see which case applies?

If it does do a search to see which case applies why do you need to have so many places? Couldn't you leave out all of those where the road actually does cross the river? Or maybe leave out those where the road does not cross the river? Do you really need both cases?

I guess I don't know how this is going to be looked at by the program. [&:]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

This has gone on long enough.




Where does your matrix say the bridge is, Curtis?

According to the current state of things the answer is NOT 42. [:D]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


Happily, your own lat-long program allows an objective means of mapping. Now, pick a list of rivers via some random technique: say all names with seven letters from a list of 'world's thousand longest rivers' or something.

Then, map at...10 km per hex, shall we say? Use the largest city on the river as the midpoint of a 21X21 array. Put in only whatever roads are shown at a given height on Google Earth.

See where your 'Matrix' puts bridges. Then ascertain where they are along those roads in reality.

Time-consuming, but the results should be comic.

I've already done multiple examples of this. See CFNA, France 1944, Okinawa 1945, Germany 1945, Soviet Union 1941, and Kaiserschlacht 1918.

All done with the LatLong program and all made to exacting standards.

And see this "house rule" in France 1944:

New house rule: Bridges may only be blown if the bridge (road or rail) graphically crosses the river/canal feature, or the hex has urban terrain.

That rule could be applied to most any scenario beneficially. France 1944 would definitely be worse without it. And note that that is exactly what the Matrix will effect.

That's why (among other things - like good old common sense), that I know you're full of it.

ORIGINAL: Panama

From what I can tell, and it's difficult trying to follow this with so many posts, the problem is all about blowing up non bridge roads/rails because they parallel rivers. Right? This being considered a gamey aspect because if the road doesn't cross the river you shouldn't be allowed to blow it up.

At least someone understands the problem. All you have to understand from there is that the Matrix will solve that exact problem. Roads that only parallel rivers and don't visibly cross them will not be blowable. If they do cross them, they will be blowable - at those exact locations.

Another thing. Will map makers have to actively do something with this matrix or is it a hidden under the hood kind of thing?

It's under the hood. Map makers will simply have to follow the Matrix rules as stated above.

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

This is merely an attempt to get some clarity.

I dl'd the Matrix.sce and don't get it either. Don't all those combinations need some code to tell the program whether or not there is a bridge in the hex ?

Of course. And I went on to create the Matrix, as shown in my post #1515. The Matrix is a 64x64 array of 1s and 0s (note that the 1s and 0s mirror the peak hexes in the scenario). It will be effected in the code as a constant 64x64 array as shown. Then the program just has to reference it as I showed in that same post #1515.

Wouldn't the same thing have to be done for minor rivers, canals and major canals ?

As I said in post #1522, I've already checked those other terrain types and they require the same matrix as the first. But, I'll attach the test scenarios here if you want to check.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

This has gone on long enough.




Where does your matrix say the bridge is, Curtis?

It says it is in the hex where the road visibly crosses the river.

Which, of course, is the only rational place for it to be when the map maker drew it in that fashion. Only an imbecile would draw it that way if the bridge was in any other he...

Oh. I'm sorry. Did you intend for it to be in some other hex?

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


Happily, your own lat-long program allows an objective means of mapping. Now, pick a list of rivers via some random technique: say all names with seven letters from a list of 'world's thousand longest rivers' or something.

Then, map at...10 km per hex, shall we say? Use the largest city on the river as the midpoint of a 21X21 array. Put in only whatever roads are shown at a given height on Google Earth.

See where your 'Matrix' puts bridges. Then ascertain where they are along those roads in reality.

Time-consuming, but the results should be comic.

I've already done multiple examples of this. See CFNA, France 1944, Okinawa 1945, Germany 1945, Soviet Union 1941, and Kaiserschlacht 1918.

All done with the LatLong program and all made to exacting standards.

And see this "house rule" in France 1944:

New house rule: Bridges may only be blown if the bridge (road or rail) graphically crosses the river/canal feature, or the hex has urban terrain.

That rule could be applied to most any scenario beneficially. France 1944 would definitely be worse without it. And note that that is exactly what the Matrix will effect.

That's why (among other things - like good old common sense), that I know you're full of it.

? How does this relate to the validity of 'the matrix'?

You appear to be asserting that 'the matrix' is somehow already employed in CFNA, France 1944, Okinawa 1945, Germany 1945, Soviet Union 1941, and Kaiserschlacht 1918 -- but I know that can't be what you are claiming.

Or is it? Hell, go ahead and claim it. In for a penny, in for a pound. Claim you're the reincarnation of Buckminster Fuller if it suits you. What the hell?

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

This has gone on long enough.




Where does your matrix say the bridge is, Curtis?

It says it is in the hex where the road visibly crosses the river.

Which, of course, is the only rational place for it to be when the map maker drew it in that fashion. Only an imbecile would draw it that way if the bridge was in any other he...

Oh. I'm sorry. Did you intend for it to be in some other hex?

Mind-numbing. Why couldn't the bridge be in the uppermost hex? A road comes into the same hex as a river, runs north along it for a while, and then crosses it. What's so weird about that?

Because the TOAW graphics routines put it in the lowermost? You know, it is just a graphic routine. TOAW will always put the 'bridge' in the bottommost hex in this case. If, on the other hand, the road still comes in from the left at the bottom but exits to the left at the top, it'll put in two 'bridges' -- one at the top and one at the bottom. Conversely, if the road comes in from the right at the bottom and exits to the right at the top, there'll be no 'bridge' at all.

Funny, huh? How roads coming from the west always cross the river in this case but roads coming from the east never do? Isn't that weird? What made Norm think such a thing?

You know, those of us who aren't Curtis probably think of this as a matter of graphic display. The tiles happen to line up so the road is to the right of the river. If the road comes from one direction, there will appear to be a 'bridge.' From the other, no 'bridge.' It has nothing to do with there actually being a bridge there in particular. That's why the actual game treats any hex containing a road and a river as a 'bridge.'

Why do you think that is, Curtis? Because maybe, just maybe, any hex containing a road and a river could have a bridge? Think that's in the cards at all?

I suspect you will now announce that designers should route their roads so that roads only intersect rivers in hexes where there is in fact a bridge -- or where your precious 'Matrix' will put one.

But you see -- we can already do that. If designers don't want there to be a 'bridge' in a hex, they can indeed move the road -- just as you would insist that they do with your 'matrix.'

So what is the point of your matrix?

The solution -- Curtis' bizarre tantrums notwithstanding -- is to have designer-designated 'destroyable' roads and rails.

Alternatively, do nothing at all. If the road and river coincide there's a bridge -- as from the information on the map, there could well be. If you don't want there to be a bridge, lay your road one hex off the river.

As you would have to do with Curtis' 'matrix' anyway. Aside from possibly allowing him to dispense with house rules in his scenarios, I can't see the point to it at all.