Comprehensive Wishlist

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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.

At the exact location...where the entirely arbitrary overlay of the TOAW graphics tiles makes there appear to be a bridge.

All we have to do is to draw our maps so that the roads only intersect the rivers so that 'bridges' appear at only those points.

Sort of like now, right?

Roads will still have to be laid off of rivers to avoid bridges where there aren't bridges. The only difference will be that instead of simply staying off the river if you don't want a bridge, you'll have to take good care to veer off of it at the points where Curtis' Matrix would otherwise decide there's a bridge. Conversely, if there's actually a bridge where Curtis' matrix won't put one, you'll have to veer off and then come back on again so as to cause his 'matrix' to see a bridge.

What a great idea, Curtis!

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Kind of comic. Let us assume that this map is an accurate representation of where the road and river lie -- they in fact share those three hexes.

Now let us assume the river is crossed in the uppermost hex only. Consider the following two alternatives.

To draw it so as to avoid any other 'bridges' under the current system, you'd want to move the road off the river for the other two hexes.

But with Curtis' 'matrix'...

You'd want to move the road off the river for the other two hexes.

[ColinWright]

Let's compare the two alternatives.

What we'd have to do now to get the 'bridge' into the topmost hex under the current system.

[ColinWright]

What we'd have to do if we had Curtis' 'matrix' at our disposal.

[ColinWright]

What an improvement! Congrats, Curtis.

[sPzAbt653]

I'll attach the test scenarios here if you want to check.

Not really. I knew I shouldn't have said anything in the first place, because I don't have the knowledge that you and Ralph do.

The solution ... is to have designer-designated 'destroyable' roads and rails.

But I think because we already have destroyable roads that what we need are un-destroyable roads. I think.

Roads that only parallel rivers and don't visibly cross them will not be blowable.

Un-Destroyable roads !!

I think.

[Oberst_Klink]

I wasn't aware what a can of 'Sand Kings' *see Twilight Zone TV pilot* and not just worms I have opened. I am not a programmer but maybe the easiest solution, if possible, might be:

A function/flag in the drop down menu in the editor simply where one can mark/flag those parallel road hexes (kinda like the possession 'thingie') as 'treat road/hex as bridge (Y/N)'

Just my 2p.

kLiNk, Oberst

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

I wasn't aware what a can of 'Sand Kings' *see Twilight Zone TV pilot* and not just worms I have opened. I am not a programmer but maybe the easiest solution, if possible, might be:

A function/flag in the drop down menu in the editor simply where one can mark/flag those parallel road hexes (kinda like the possession 'thingie') as 'treat road/hex as bridge (Y/N)'

Just my 2p.

kLiNk, Oberst

It seems to me that all this -- and more -- can be accomplished if we make it possible to mark roads/rails 'destroyable' rather than 'undestroyable.' A road/rail cannot be destroyed unless the appropriate tile has been selected. From a programming point of view, all that is necessary is that there be two additional tile slots that the current destroy/repair bridges routines can point to.

Then we can not only avoid bridges where we don't want them -- but we can also make any non-river hex we see as subject to serious blockage 'destroyable.'

Those who feel such a thing shouldn't happen can refrain from putting such hexes in their scenarios.

[Panama]

Destroyable, undestroyable, matrix, flags, tile sets. Whatever. What's there now isn't really very good.

The world is adrift in roads that follow rivers. Maybe we can get highway engineers to move them back from the rivers 100km. That would solve the problem for any future scenario designers but you would still have the ones that were there in the past. I suppose we could use Mr. Peabody's Wayback Machine. [:'(]

We want to see something that works 100% of the time. Roads/rails that cross rivers can be blowed up. Roads/rails that parallel rivers are not bridges, never were intended to be bridges and no amount of obfuscation can make them bridges so don't allow them to be destroyed.

Believe it or not, I think Norm actually thought people would be smart enough to know when a bridge is a bridge.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


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.

I am claiming that the house rule in use in France 1944 - and can probably be beneficially used in almost all other scenarios, is just what the Matrix will officially enforce.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

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 map designers aren't mindless. They are conscious beings. They can see what their maps look like as they draw them. They can see where the bridge is located by the graphics, and if it was supposed to be in the upper hex, they won't draw it that way. They'll draw it so that it crosses the river at the upper hex.

But, even if they didn't, the matrix improves the game because it limits the number of bridges to one. As things stand, there would be three. Number of bridges is more important than their exact location. It's the difference between having to repair one bridge and having to repair three. That impacts the game more than having the bridge be off by a hex or two.

It also improves the game by giving the players a natural visual as to where the bridges are. They're where the road graphically crosses the river.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

We want to see something that works 100% of the time. Roads/rails that cross rivers can be blowed up. Roads/rails that parallel rivers are not bridges, never were intended to be bridges and no amount of obfuscation can make them bridges so don't allow them to be destroyed.

And, again, that is exactly what the Matrix will do. Colin is still trying to convince you that road/rails that parallel rivers are bridges and should be treated as bridges. Don't buy his Kool-aid.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

At the exact location...where the entirely arbitrary overlay of the TOAW graphics tiles makes there appear to be a bridge.

Since it was drawn by a conscious being, there's nothing arbitrary about it at all.

All we have to do is to draw our maps so that the roads only intersect the rivers so that 'bridges' appear at only those points.

Sort of like now, right?

No. Roads that parallel rivers will no longer be treated as bridges.

Roads will still have to be laid off of rivers to avoid bridges where there aren't bridges.

Only on the southwest side. Roads on the northeast side can join and then run along the river. And note that TOAW can't show a road running parallel to a river on the SW side. Why would anyone want to draw their map so that a road running on the SW side of a river looks like it is running on the NE side?

Conversely, if there's actually a bridge where Curtis' matrix won't put one, you'll have to veer off and then come back on again so as to cause his 'matrix' to see a bridge.

Or put a stub tributary there. No game effect - same as a "blowable" tile - except it has the advantage of giving players a visceral notice that there is a bridge in the hex.

[Panama]

When can people expect to see any changes take effect?

If I had my druthers I'd rather see bridge tiles. [:D]

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


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.

I am claiming that the house rule in use in France 1944 - and can probably be beneficially used in almost all other scenarios, is just what the Matrix will officially enforce.

So the purpose of the engine is now to enforce your house rules?

Funny -- how many other people use these house rules? I think that gives us a good count on the general utility of this change.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Panama

We want to see something that works 100% of the time. Roads/rails that cross rivers can be blowed up. Roads/rails that parallel rivers are not bridges, never were intended to be bridges and no amount of obfuscation can make them bridges so don't allow them to be destroyed.

And, again, that is exactly what the Matrix will do. Colin is still trying to convince you that road/rails that parallel rivers are bridges and should be treated as bridges. Don't buy his Kool-aid.

As I've demonstrated by referring to three completely different rivers flowing through completely different types of terrain, a road that appears to be 'paralleling' the river is as likely to contain the bridge as any other hex containing the river and the road.

This is up there (or down there) with your 'wadis are trenches' claim. Worse, this time you are asserting that you're actually going to impose your nonsense on the rest of us.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

When can people expect to see any changes take effect?

If I had my druthers I'd rather see bridge tiles. [:D]

We don't get our druthers, apparently. We get what will allow Curtis to dispense with house rules for his scenarios.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Why would anyone want to draw their map so that a road running on the SW side of a river looks like it is running on the NE side?

Ummm...

Because the available graphics give them no choice?

Because in fact the road is in that hex?

Because moving it, aside from being inaccurate geographically, will create worse problems?

It seems to me that road winds up in that hex for about the same reasons anything winds up in any hex.

You want to substitute a routine that will declare some hexes bridges and others not without reference to the reality on the ground for a routine that at least has the virtue of simplicity and clarity. Currently, you put a road into a river hex, you know you're going to get a bridge. With your change, one will have to go -- 'oh this makes it a bridge. Now, how can I route things so that it's not a bridge?'

What's the point of that? Aside from helping you to clean up your scenarios, that is?

Everyone else who is participating in this discussion either wants (a) hexes that can be designated as bridges without constraint, or (b) hex-side rivers.

For good reason. Those are the alternatives to the current system that actually accomplish something.

See the examples posted above. Your 'matrix' does nothing. It's the worst idea since the concrete zeppelin. Worse, it would appear that somehow you've acquired the ability to impose this idea on the rest of us.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Everyone else who is participating in this discussion either wants (a) hexes that can be designated as bridges without constraint, or (b) hex-side rivers.

For good reason. Those are the alternatives to the current system that actually accomplish something.

See the examples posted above. Your 'matrix' does nothing. It's the worst idea since the concrete zeppelin. Worse, it would appear that somehow you've acquired the ability to impose this idea on the rest of us.

As long as we're shooting for the Moon here, when can we have a bigger unit database? And the ability to flush weapon systems out of a units TO&E so we can do away with the lame transition process we're stuck with now?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Everyone else who is participating in this discussion either wants (a) hexes that can be designated as bridges without constraint, or (b) hex-side rivers.

For good reason. Those are the alternatives to the current system that actually accomplish something.

See the examples posted above. Your 'matrix' does nothing. It's the worst idea since the concrete zeppelin. Worse, it would appear that somehow you've acquired the ability to impose this idea on the rest of us.

As long as we're shooting for the Moon here, when can we have a bigger unit database? And the ability to flush weapon systems out of a units TO&E so we can do away with the lame transition process we're stuck with now?

1. What do you mean by a 'bigger unit database'?

2. As to weapons transitions, I've advocated introducing an absolute cap on on how many weapons can be in a unit. That would have addressed many of the problems without excessive complication -- but as I recall, the idea ran into Blocking Detachment LeMay. The discussion is somewhere...