Terrain Tile Names

[rhinobones]

There’s good reason why virtually every hex-based game uses the hex-side solution.

And there it is. The only real basis for this whole argument: "This is how board wargames have always done it." How could any wargame designer buck that group-think?

It's not based upon reality. Reality is far messier.

Oh . . . like a river running down the middle of a hex is reality? Units can only defend a river from one hex away is reality. Cities cannot be on a river, they must either stratal the river or be placed one hex away and that's called reality. Well, you can make reality anyway you like and spin the words to make the case, but I seriously doubt that you have ever been in a military unit that crossed a river or tried to defend. It's about time you get off the Blessed Norm horse.

Think you should post a list of all the attributes hex-in rivers has that are superior to hex-side rivers.

Best Regards

[Lobster]

I can't tell what you're describing. You pay a MP price to enter a river hex. If you later attack out of that hex into a clear hex, there is no further price in MPs to do so. But, if you attack into another river hex - even if connected to the one you're in - there is that same MP cost, due to the meandering/wandering of the river within its hex - requiring further crossings of the river tactically.

What I am saying that you pay a movement point cost to enter a hex with a river to model crossing the river. Then, after you have already paid the penalty for crossing the river (you have crossed the river), you are penalized for attacking a unit across a river simply because you are in a river hex that you have already crossed. How is it you are penalized in a combat for attacking across a river when you are already across the river.

I'm saying that the frontal offensive will have to cross the river over and over as that river will not conform with the offensive direction in the neat fashion you imagine. The defenders will exploit its wandering and meandering. Do you really think that an offensive up a river is the same as an offensive up clear terrain? The river will be effectively invisible?

Here you are assuming that once across a river (in the same hex as the river that you paid to cross) you attack right away. But what if you don't attack right away? You are still across the river. If I attack ten turns later you seem to think, per your reply, that the attacker is still crossing the river and in your words again and again.

[Lobster]

@Bob: Let's try this. Why do units expend extra movement points when they enter a river hex?

[Simon Edmonds]

"Exactly! It's actual position in the hex is undetermined. It will not align with the hex grid or go straight down the center. It will fall all over the place - to be exploited by the defenders."
I think you "cherry picked" my post to distort what I was trying to say. You will note that I am an advocate of both central hex rivers and hexside rivers depending on the scale and situation.
Please do not mis-represent me.

[Curtis Lemay]

There’s good reason why virtually every hex-based game uses the hex-side solution.

And there it is. The only real basis for this whole argument: "This is how board wargames have always done it." How could any wargame designer buck that group-think?

It's not based upon reality. Reality is far messier.

Oh . . . like a river running down the middle of a hex is reality?

Throw a hexgrid over a real map. The river will not align with the hexgrid or run straight down the middle. It will be somewhere within the hex. That's reality.

I repeat; the whole basis for this issue is nothing other than board wargames. Not reality.

Units can only defend a river from one hex away is reality.

You defend behind the river. Just like with hexside rivers.

Cities cannot be on a river, they must either stratal the river or be placed one hex away and that's called reality.

Huh? On a river and straddling a river are the same thing.

[Curtis Lemay]

What I am saying that you pay a movement point cost to enter a hex with a river to model crossing the river. Then, after you have already paid the penalty for crossing the river (you have crossed the river), you are penalized for attacking a unit across a river simply because you are in a river hex that you have already crossed. How is it you are penalized in a combat for attacking across a river when you are already across the river.

So what? Ultimately, as the offensive fights upto and beyond the river, the penalty is paid once - just like for hexside rivers. (Note, however, that I have devised some improvements to river hexes that would address this.)

Here you are assuming that once across a river (in the same hex as the river that you paid to cross) you attack right away. But what if you don't attack right away? You are still across the river. If I attack ten turns later you seem to think, per your reply, that the attacker is still crossing the river and in your words again and again.

My assumption here is that you are attacking into another river hex - different from the one you are currently in. No matter how long you wait, the defenders are still waiting as well - exploiting the bends and such of the river internal to their hex.

[Lobster]

What I am saying that you pay a movement point cost to enter a hex with a river to model crossing the river. Then, after you have already paid the penalty for crossing the river (you have crossed the river), you are penalized for attacking a unit across a river simply because you are in a river hex that you have already crossed. How is it you are penalized in a combat for attacking across a river when you are already across the river.

So what? Ultimately, as the offensive fights upto and beyond the river, the penalty is paid once - just like for hexside rivers. (Note, however, that I have devised some improvements to river hexes that would address this.)

But you are already across the river. Been across it for a month. For ten turns. For a hundred turns. That's why you spent a penalty in movement points to enter the hex. Still have to fight as though it was never crossed.

Here you are assuming that once across a river (in the same hex as the river that you paid to cross) you attack right away. But what if you don't attack right away? You are still across the river. If I attack ten turns later you seem to think, per your reply, that the attacker is still crossing the river and in your words again and again.

My assumption here is that you are attacking into another river hex - different from the one you are currently in. No matter how long you wait, the defenders are still waiting as well - exploiting the bends and such of the river internal to their hex.

What? Here we go with the bends again. I feel like I've come up from the deep too fast. Once across the river there are no bends. You are across the river. That's why you spent extra movement points to enter the river hex. The proof is in the number of rounds you expend. Last turn I expended extra movement points to enter the river hex and come adjacent to the enemy. But I didn't attack. So now the next turn. The turn after I spent the extra movement points to enter the river hex. The now turn. The current turn. If I attack the enemy the planner tells me I expend one round. That's because I'm across the river and don't have to expand any extra movement points to cross what I've already crossed. I'm right next to the enemy on the same side of the river they are on and I've expended zero movement points to be adjent because last turn I expended extra movement points to enter the river hex. If I weren't I would have to expend movement points and more than likely the planner would show two or more rounds to be expended.

I don't expect you to act like you understand and you'll pretend something different and spin it in some way as you always do. And please, no more bends. I've been in the decompression chamber far too many times.

[Lobster]

I take umbrage with the comment "Rivers don't neatly follow a hexgrid, and abstracting them as if they do is a hit to realism."
It also follows that rivers don't neatly run up the center of every hex either. It follows that the game should allow either type to be used. Where a river meanders or is in a narrow valley it should run up the middle. Where it runs in a well defined line then use a hexside.

I'm in complete agreement with you. A case for both in the game can be logically made.

[Curtis Lemay]

But you are already across the river. Been across it for a month. For ten turns. For a hundred turns. That's why you spent a penalty in movement points to enter the hex. Still have to fight as though it was never crossed.

But you didn't pay the combat penalty to get into the river hex. That is only paid upon fighting beyond it. The movement cost to enter the river hex is only paid once and the combat penalty is only paid once.

What? Here we go with the bends again. I feel like I've come up from the deep too fast. Once across the river there are no bends. You are across the river. That's why you spent extra movement points to enter the river hex. The proof is in the number of rounds you expend. Last turn I expended extra movement points to enter the river hex and come adjacent to the enemy. But I didn't attack. So now the next turn. The turn after I spent the extra movement points to enter the river hex. The now turn. The current turn. If I attack the enemy the planner tells me I expend one round. That's because I'm across the river and don't have to expand any extra movement points to cross what I've already crossed. I'm right next to the enemy on the same side of the river they are on and I've expended zero movement points to be adjent because last turn I expended extra movement points to enter the river hex. If I weren't I would have to expend movement points and more than likely the planner would show two or more rounds to be expended.

I don't expect you to act like you understand and you'll pretend something different and spin it in some way as you always do. And please, no more bends. I've been in the decompression chamber far too many times.

Again, take a REAL MAP and throw a hexgrid over it. The rivers won't fall on the hexsides or right down the middle of the hexes. They will wander all over the insides of the hexes. Any front lines being forced up a line river hexes will constantly be forced to cross back and forth over the river - exploited by the defender. Now, once you've crossed the river, you can operate entirely on that side of the river - by pursuing your offensive entirely on the clear terrain on that side of the river hexes. But, if you insist on pushing it directly up the line of river hexes you have to expect that front to repeatedly cross the river to do so.

[rhinobones]

Again, take a REAL MAP and throw a hexgrid over it. The rivers won't fall on the hexsides or right down the middle of the hexes. They will wander all over . . .

Well of course a map and hex matrix don't line up, rivers aren't expected to fall nicely on the hex lines. But then isn't that true for every land feature? It's silly to apply your argument to rivers while neglecting to mention that there are no land features that adhere to the hexagon pattern, but yet we accept that they are defined within a hexagonal grid system. Don't think you can, or should, make a special case for rivers not following a hex pattern. It's an abstract, you've used that word yourself.

I view the hex side as being a boundary from one hex too the next; rivers define the physical attributes of that boundary much like a fence marks the boundary from your yard to the next. Just as an escarpment defines the boundary from one hex to the next. Your logic would have fences meandering across the yards and confusing the dogs on where to poop!

Regards

[Lobster]

But you didn't pay the combat penalty to get into the river hex. That is only paid upon fighting beyond it. The movement cost to enter the river hex is only paid once and the combat penalty is only paid once.

You don't pay a combat penalty to move into a river hex. You pay a movement penalty. Read the rules. That penalty is for the time it would take to cross the river. So you paid an extra amount of movement points to cross the river. But did you cross the river? Sure did. If you use a pontoon unit it reduces the movement penalty. Why? Because the pontoon unit helped you to cross the river. Logic, something you have trouble with, tells you that because a pontoon unit reduces movement because they help you to cross the river means you crossed the river. No matter how you attempt to spin it that's what happens.

So now I've crossed the river proven because a pontoon unit helped reduce movement because they help you to cross the river more easily.

Now next turn I attack an enemy unit that was adjacent to the river hex that I entered. And I am penalized for attacking across a river that I've already crossed. I'm not going back and forth across the river like you tried to spin. I'm not crossing endless bends like you tried to spin. I'm across the river penalized for attacking across a river I've already crossed. Spin away spinmeister.

[William the Silent]

For me the Hexside issue came up, because I often create games from boardgames and they use hexside rivers.
So if I try to make the map with TOAW I will lose land hexes to create rivers and it can take away the special effect from a certain map location.
It would have been nice if TOAW had both options. Since there are escarpments in the game, there could easily have been hexside rivers in TOAW too.
I can manage with the TOAW super rivers and streams. It's not perfect, but games are flawed simulations of reality anyways. But we want to get close to it.

Everybody thanks for they replies.

[sPzAbt653]

AFAIK Jarek Flis was the originator of river/escarpment tiles and deserves full credit for his effort.

Hi Mr. Bones ... thanks for reminding that Frozen Steppes also used the Escarpments as hexside river features. Sadly, while the scenario was included in TOAW IV, the art work was not seen in TOAW IV [appearing as standard escarpment]. Maybe in the future this can be corrected.

[Curtis Lemay]

Well of course a map and hex matrix don't line up, rivers aren't expected to fall nicely on the hex lines. But then isn't that true for every land feature? It's silly to apply your argument to rivers while neglecting to mention that there are no land features that adhere to the hexagon pattern, but yet we accept that they are defined within a hexagonal grid system. Don't think you can, or should, make a special case for rivers not following a hex pattern. It's an abstract, you've used that word yourself.

I was just pointing out that the basis for hexside rivers is "that's how wargames have always done it" and nothing else. Reality is far messier.

I view the hex side as being a boundary from one hex too the next; rivers define the physical attributes of that boundary much like a fence marks the boundary from your yard to the next. Just as an escarpment defines the boundary from one hex to the next. Your logic would have fences meandering across the yards and confusing the dogs on where to poop!

Think of a trench. Is is a boundary? Sure. But it's dug out in a zig-zag pattern. That's done so that when the enemy gets into the trench he doesn't enfilade the entire trench. The zig-zag pattern gives the trench a defensive benefit along the length of the trench - not just a frontal defensive benefit. That's what wandering around in the hex gives rivers as well. Hexside rivers don't have such a benefit.

Think what hexside rivers imply: You can attack on a front along the river and the defender gets no benefit from the river - just like it was an attack through clear terrain, as if the river wasn't even there. That's a hit to reality.

[Curtis Lemay]

You don't pay a combat penalty to move into a river hex. You pay a movement penalty. Read the rules. That penalty is for the time it would take to cross the river. So you paid an extra amount of movement points to cross the river. But did you cross the river? Sure did. If you use a pontoon unit it reduces the movement penalty. Why? Because the pontoon unit helped you to cross the river. Logic, something you have trouble with, tells you that because a pontoon unit reduces movement because they help you to cross the river means you crossed the river. No matter how you attempt to spin it that's what happens.

So now I've crossed the river proven because a pontoon unit helped reduce movement because they help you to cross the river more easily.

Now next turn I attack an enemy unit that was adjacent to the river hex that I entered. And I am penalized for attacking across a river that I've already crossed. I'm not going back and forth across the river like you tried to spin. I'm not crossing endless bends like you tried to spin. I'm across the river penalized for attacking across a river I've already crossed. Spin away spinmeister.

I'm just trying to make you understand that for both the river hex and the hexside river, the movement and combat costs are only paid once as the front lines go across the river.

[Lobster]

If you save a scenario as a .gam xml file and look at the header you'll see just before the map data this:

....riversAlongEdges="0"

It appears to me that at one time someone was seriously considering hex side rivers and in hex rivers and the scenario designer would decide which way to go. That's why there's a switch. 1=yes to hexside rivers. 0=no to hexside rivers.

[Lobster]

I'm just trying to make you understand that for both the river hex and the hexside river, the movement and combat costs are only paid once as the front lines go across the river.

Of course. That's what I've been saying. But if you pay a movement cost to cross a river a logical person would realize you are across the river. Why then are you penalized when attacking a unit on the other side of the river if you have already crossed the river? Logically if you are penalized for attacking from a river hex you should not have to first cross the river and then sometime in the future regardless of how far away that future is be penalized for attacking across something you have already crossed. The proof that you have already crossed the river before the combat takes place is the fact that pontoon or engineer units reduce the cost to enter the river hex regardles of whether or not there is a combat. I can understand a penalty if you attack immediately (same turn) after entering a river hex. That might make some sense. But any turn after entering the river hex is highly illogical because you have already crossed the river. There is no cross river assault because you already paid a penalty in a past turn for entering the river hex.

Given your thought process, if I paid to enter the river hex indicating I crossed the river but still have to pay a penalty to attack a unit that is adjacent to that river hex then should an enemy unit attacking my unit have to pay a penalty for attacking across a river even though it isn't in a river hex? This because obviously it's a Schrodinger's Box situation. The unit is across the river and isn't across the river at the same time even though a penalty was paid to enter the river hex to account for crossing the river.

Anyway, I understand you will never get your head around it and I've explained it as best I can.

[rhinobones]

Hi Mr. Bones ... thanks for reminding that Frozen Steppes also used the Escarpments as hexside river features. Sadly, while the scenario was included in TOAW IV, the art work was not seen in TOAW IV [appearing as standard escarpment]. Maybe in the future this can be corrected.

Originally this is a TOAW III scenario with terrain tiles in the bmp format. I'm sure the conversion to TOAW IV did not include re-drawing the escarpment tiles in the png format. If someone wants to invest the time and effort to paint the necessary png tiles, the bmp artwork is available.

Regards

[Curtis Lemay]

Of course. That's what I've been saying. But if you pay a movement cost to cross a river a logical person would realize you are across the river. Why then are you penalized when attacking a unit on the other side of the river if you have already crossed the river? Logically if you are penalized for attacking from a river hex you should not have to first cross the river and then sometime in the future regardless of how far away that future is be penalized for attacking across something you have already crossed. The proof that you have already crossed the river before the combat takes place is the fact that pontoon or engineer units reduce the cost to enter the river hex regardles of whether or not there is a combat. I can understand a penalty if you attack immediately (same turn) after entering a river hex. That might make some sense. But any turn after entering the river hex is highly illogical because you have already crossed the river. There is no cross river assault because you already paid a penalty in a past turn for entering the river hex.

Given your thought process, if I paid to enter the river hex indicating I crossed the river but still have to pay a penalty to attack a unit that is adjacent to that river hex then should an enemy unit attacking my unit have to pay a penalty for attacking across a river even though it isn't in a river hex? This because obviously it's a Schrodinger's Box situation. The unit is across the river and isn't across the river at the same time even though a penalty was paid to enter the river hex to account for crossing the river.

Anyway, I understand you will never get your head around it and I've explained it as best I can.

I understand that the movement and combat costs are not paid at the same time. I'm just pointing out that they nevertheless are incurring the same costs. I think the costs are what matter. So, that's all this issue is about: Exactly where a 0.7 penalty is paid. Is that really worth the effort?

Think about the downside to hexside rivers: Riverine movement, bridge destruction, and bridge repair all become much more difficult to effect and use. Rivers have to actually straddle the hexside - the only terrain to do so.

[rhinobones]

Think what hexside rivers imply: You can attack on a front along the river and the defender gets no benefit from the river - just like it was an attack through clear terrain, as if the river wasn't even there. That's a hit to reality.

By attacking “along” the river it is unclear whether you intend to attack parallel to the river, or across the river.

Across The River
Programming wise, attacking across a river is no different than attacking up hill. The algorithm is adjusted to give the defender a bonus against the units crossing the river. You're the programmer, you know how to program a defensive bonus, other programmers are able to do it so I can't imagine why you would go on record as saying the defender gets no benefit.

Attacking Parallel to the River
The river forms a flank of the defender and provides no defensive benefit. The defender would depend upon terrain and entrenchment for the bonus.

Regards