ORIGINAL: IronDuke
So? Lets try this one more time.
If you enter a river hex, two separate rules apply.
If you are attacked, you are classed as having got across.
If you attack, you are classed as not having got across.
Regarding your bolded claim, it is either an incorrect assumption on your part, or a deliberate strawman argument. Let me clarify.
Well, with respect, I fear for the thread when the Moderator wades in with terms like "strawman" and "dumbing down". Let me say at this juncture that if I'm headed for a holiday as we progress, it was nothing personal. It is, however, disappointing on my part to see the attitude encountered thus far (and I don't doubt displayed by me as well) carried over into your contribution.
I would say before we continue that I wholly support the TOAWIII project, am grateful you took it on, but feel the money I parted with to purchase this (fifth) incarnation of the game on my shelves entitles me to a "pet", "dumbed down" and clearly pointless opinion, given your later remarks. I still offer this support and gratitude even given our later spat.
ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
Rivers along hexsides allow units to assume two basic states. The first is that of a solid, and coherent defense, which is always in effect, when neither force is actively attacking across the river. The second is that of an attacking force, which is only in effect for a very brief, and discrete amount of time. This is the point in time when a game will usually penalize the actively attacking force.
To be fair, this sounds remarkably lifelike to me (and just perhaps Norm if he did indeed code these thus). However, lets press on, Norm is no more and I'm on my own.
The reason that TOAW will continue...
Are you able to outline how changes are selected and prioritised within this project? This remark above suggests user input is a marginal influence unless the opinion proferred fits in with existing belief. Since it suggests that greater weight is given to your design philosophy. This is fine, is indeed your complete prerogative, but I might save a lot of time arguing for things in the future if I see you come down one way or another. In other words, knowing what I know now, I wouldn't have gotten into an extended argument with others round here once I'd seen you proffer your opinion originally and had it come down against me.
The reason that TOAW will continue to model rivers in hexes, instead of as hexsides, is that this allows an additional state, or operational condition, that units may assume beyond that of what is allowed by hexside rivers. That of a shallow bridgehead. The cost, or trade-off, here is a simple spatial distortion that, absent battle, is no better or worse than that caused by forcing rivers to run along hexsides.
But what spatial distortion is there when rivers run alongside hex sides? As I mentioned earlier the maps can be very good, but they are full of compromises. What is one more if it could be seen to aid gameplay?
A shallow bridgehead does not allow for units to maneuver well and, given the general nature of river valleys, will also represent, due to elevation, a tactical advantage to those opposing forces not on a river hex. Thus the 70% reduction in firepower that affects the attacking units.
But is this what the 70% reduction actually represents? Surely it represents the effect of being in a boat, paddling across open water, unable to deploy heavy weapons, shooting from an unsteady moving platform with only those weapons held by people not paddling, and moving at walking pace? This is a reduction in attacking strength, which indicates surely that the tactical problem being simulated is with the attacking units.
Defenders having better fields of fire due to "potentially" being on tactically useful higher ground surely wouldn't be expressed by messing with the attackers values. When we simulate the defenders being in other kinds of tactically useful defensive employments like entrenchments, we enhance their defensive values don't we, rather than decrease the values of attacking forces? I confess my years of TOAW were about operational employment and getting a feel for things, I have never delved under the hood as much as I perhaps should, so if my understanding is wrong...
Finally, units getting across a river but no further, would likely only have a shallow single hex bridgehead to defend anyway, and for operational purposes the size of the bridgehead is the key since that is how much they have to defend to avoid getting thrown back by the opposing player's counterattack.
Now, to be consistent, I believe that this penalty should apply to all forces on river hexes, regardless of whether they are attacking, or defending. I will try to get Ralph to code that effect for the next patch. This will also clear up inconsistencies when attacking and defending units are both on river hexes. Both sides will be equally constrained and affected.
If I understand this right, you're suggesting (or rather telling us) that the defensive firepower of a unit defending on a river hex will be reduced by 30% sometime soon?
What are we simulating if a unit tries to cross the river, incurs a 30% penalty during the attack, fails to take the opposite bank, and then incurs a 30% penalty defending against an inevitable counterattack the following player's turn? No bridgehead was taken (to partially pre-empt your next remarks and my response).
What if no attack was indeed actually launched and they are attacked?
Why does such an additional state need to be present in TOAW? This is because attackers crossing a river, attacking from a river, defending a narrow bridgehead, should be in a more vulnerable state (at least potentially) at some point in time during the turn. If the "turn" ends, (local/global initiative shifts) before a bridgehead is established deeply enough to be safe from local counterattacks, then the game needs to have the forces that are, in essence, straddling the river, or packed into a confined area, be vulnerable to enemy action - while it is still in this disorganized or operationally weakened state. Thus, if a player can replicate a quick, decisive and effective breakthrough at the point of crossing, a la Sedan, then by the time the enemy can react, the bridgehead is already established some non-zero number of hexes deep, and away from the river. The bridgehead has been successfully forced, and is more relatively safe from any counterattacks that might follow. If the player fumbles, bumbles and stumbles in the face of the enemy resistance, a la Fredricksburg, then the bridgehead is too narrow for the forces across to take advantage of maneuver, they are working up river banks, the bridging or ferry assets are under fire, and the units are in a vulnerable state, such that continued actions against it and the forces within it have a relative advantage.
Indeed, but isn't Tac reserve essentially the mechanism for simulating local counterattacks into shallow breathroughs during the opponent's turn? Employing Tac reserves units behind the front lines would lead them to deploy into the hex at a time when enemy firepower was reduced by 30% enhancing their effect still further in river assault situations.
Secondly, the bridgehead will have a disorganised and vulnerable moment whether the player retains the initiative or not. Fact is that we can't exploit that within IGOUGO so this feature only really applies if the attacking player burns up too much turn getting across. That is fine, you've highlighted that, but under hexside river rules, burning up too much time getting across would leave you in an isolated bridgehead hex on the other side in a non-defensive deployment. How vulnerable can you get in this game to have just siuffered combat, be all alone, not eligible for Tac reserve aid and not dug in.
Hexside rivers never allow this moment of vulnerability to be exploited by an active player. Given the way that the TOAW system manages time as a resource, this is inconsistent with the design philosophy of the game.
I disagree, I genuinely don't think your logic follows. Let me (respectfully) try and explain why:
Firstly, you're suggesting that this moment of vulnerability would only be exploited anyway by the defending player (when he became active) if the bridgehead wasn't successfully forced and exploited in the first place, either because it eat up too much of the clock or there was player error burning the turn or the attack happened at the end of a turn with much MP already used. Therefore, this only really applies when the attacking player has only just gotten across.
Fine, I follow the logic and the game mechanics forcing it.
However, with hexside rivers, a player making all the errors listed above would only have an eminently counterattackable single or double hex bridgehead on the other side anyway. If he didn't actually make it across in either hex or hex side, at least with hex sides, his failure would not be compounded by being counterattacked (having failed to get across the river) with the sort of force that could only have applied in real life if he had got across.
In other words, this
Thus, if a player can replicate a quick, decisive and effective breakthrough at the point of crossing, a la Sedan, then by the time the enemy can react, the bridgehead is already established some non-zero number of hexes deep, and away from the river. The bridgehead has been successfully forced, and is more relatively safe from any counterattacks that might follow.
remains eminently true in either hex rivers or hex side rivers and this...
If the "turn" ends, (local/global initiative shifts) before a bridgehead is established deeply enough to be safe from local counterattacks, then the game needs to have the forces that are, in essence, straddling the river, or packed into a confined area, be vulnerable to enemy action - while it is still in this disorganized or operationally weakened state.
...is eminently true as well since the enemy forces will be in a single hex in a non defensive deployment waiting to get hit with no prospect of aid.
The advantage with hexsides is that failure to get across doesn't see your entire unit slaughtered by counterattack as if it had, and massing to attack across doesn't see enemy Armoured pre-emptive strikes getting across the river for free and running amok in your form up areas.
Feel free to agree, disagree, and to promote your pet ideas - whether or not they support in-hex, or hex-side, rivers. However, keep in mind that at this stage of engine development, adding hexside rivers will entail a huge amount of engine rewriting, testing, and bug-hunting for something that is not merely an insignificant addition given the resources necessary to apply them with an internal consistency, but when utilized, would actually be a reduction in the range of operational states that the opposing forces may assume within the space of time that a turn represents.
As above, I don't believe it does represent a reduction in the operational states. For a unit to attack and fail to get across is the only instance where something different might happen in hex and hex side options. What you seem to be simulating is very micro, ie some portion of the force getting across and being vulnerable, because everything else (I humbly submit) equally applies to hex side rivers. We don't simulate anywhere else part of an attack being successful and part of an attacking force that has been rebuffed being anywhere other than its own start line. I very humbly submit it doesn't follow it is needed here.
We don't intend on dumbing down the game and reducing the options for player interaction within the space of the game turns. We're rather more interested in continuing to increase them.
I don't think dismissing a counter argument as "dumbing down" was really required or necessary on several grounds, but not least because it suggests a confidence in the strength of your arguments that may be misplaced given half the people here seem to disagree with you.
I hope this adequately explains the continuing design philosophy that will govern development of this title, and it successors.
I do indeed believe I have had this explained.
Regards,
Ironduke