Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I can't find anything on that link. I was relying on Ralph's original link which had this comment:

"... The coordinate system is based on the icosaeder, which is subdivided into triangles, which are of nearly equal size and therefore ..."

Sorry, I should have been more specific. See, e.g., this table. The models only come in specific resolutions (apparently, the weather model uses #9). I got the impression that the hexes all are true hexagons (all sides equal length).

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I also doubt the thing has them arranged in latitute rows either.

There definitely does not seem to be any nice latitude rows in these models. For instance, look at the foldable models. And then there are the twelve pentagon anomalies to take into account...

ORIGINAL: MarGol

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I can't find anything on that link. I was relying on Ralph's original link which had this comment:

"... The coordinate system is based on the icosaeder, which is subdivided into triangles, which are of nearly equal size and therefore ..."

Sorry, I should have been more specific. See, e.g., this table. The models only come in specific resolutions (apparently, the weather model uses #9). I got the impression that the hexes all are true hexagons (all sides equal length).

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I also doubt the thing has them arranged in latitute rows either.

There definitely does not seem to be any nice latitude rows in these models. For instance, look at the foldable models. And then there are the twelve pentagon anomalies to take into account...

Ah! I think I see what they're doing. Are you familiar with percentage dice? They are also called 20-sided dice. The technical term is Icosahedron. And that's what they are using to approximate a sphere. The Icosahedron has twenty triangular faces connected by twelve vertices. At each vertex the corners of five of the faces meet - that accounts for the need for the twelve pentagons. The twenty faces are then simply mapped with however many hexagons are required for the specified scale - hexagons do fit together onto flat planes.

But, while an Icosahedron is much closer to being a sphere than, say, a cube, it still isn't quite there. To get a sphere, the Icosahedron then has to be "inflated" like a basketball. Doing so introduces distortion of both size and shape to the hexes. The hexes at the center of the faces get the most inflation, while those near the vertices get the least. But the inflation is not uniform over the hex - the part nearer the vertex gets less than the part furthest, etc. That changes the shape of the hex, unless it is centrally located relative to the vertices.

So, while the hexes may be of uniform sizes on the Icosahedron, they are not uniform in either size or shape once that has been expanded into a sphere. The non-uniformity is probably not severe, though. Remember that they themselves described them as "nearly equal size". This makes sense, as I just don't think you can fit together uniform hexagons onto a true sphere.

Would like to see the occupation of a “Zone” (entry into a “Zone”) equivalent to the existing occupation event trigger where “Force A - Occupies X,Y - Radius Z” triggers event ABC.  The new event would be where “Force A - Occupies Zone X - Radius 0” triggers event ABC”.  Think this would be very good for defining boundaries and national boarders.  Of course we would need a few extra Zones to make it really effective.
 
The current method of using a radius to define the trigger has excellent applications, but sometimes an irregular trigger is required.
 
Regards, RhinoBones

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Would like to see the occupation of a “Zone” (entry into a “Zone”) equivalent to the existing occupation event trigger where “Force A - Occupies X,Y - Radius Z” triggers event ABC. The new event would be where “Force A - Occupies Zone X - Radius 0” triggers event ABC”. Think this would be very good for defining boundaries and national boarders. Of course we would need a few extra Zones to make it really effective.

The current method of using a radius to define the trigger has excellent applications, but sometimes an irregular trigger is required.

Regards, RhinoBones

Yeah but with one thousand events, you can pretty much create as many events as necessary to describe the zone desired. It's not exactly elegant, but it'll work.

The proposal is all about efficiency.

Of course the same effect can be made using the existing event structure. Each individual hex in a 2000 Kilometer front can have its very own event trigger. Not a problem if the designer feels like key padding all those entries. The purpose of this proposal is to make the event design and entry process more efficient.

Say you stray into a small country with only 50 hexes of national boundary. My proposal would make a trigger using one event plus any flow down events. In the existing system (that you indicate as being adequate) how many of the 50 boarder hexes require occupation events (plus flow down) for the same trigger event effect?

Any designer knows the answer to this efficiency question.

Regards, RhinoBones

We definitely want to include definable zones in TOAW IV. There are a host of uses, beyond simply being efficient, for zone-based events.

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

We definitely want to include definable zones in TOAW IV. There are a host of uses, beyond simply being efficient, for zone-based events.

Thank you for the reply. This is really good news.

Regards, RhinoBones

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

The proposal is all about efficiency.

Of course the same effect can be made using the existing event structure. Each individual hex in a 2000 Kilometer front can have its very own event trigger. Not a problem if the designer feels like key padding all those entries. The purpose of this proposal is to make the event design and entry process more efficient.

Say you stray into a small country with only 50 hexes of national boundary. My proposal would make a trigger using one event plus any flow down events. In the existing system (that you indicate as being adequate) how many of the 50 boarder hexes require occupation events (plus flow down) for the same trigger event effect?

Just to give a real-world example of this, in my "France 1944" scenario I have an effect that is to be triggered when the Allies cross the Seine. The Seine boundary snakes across 61 hexes of the map. To effect this, I used 18 Occupation Events, followed by another 18 Activation Events all pointing to one Trigger Event & one message event, for a total of 38 events. These are events 62-99 in the scenario.

For a 50-hex country, how many occupation events would be required would depend upon how the country was shaped - how round vs. how elongated it was.

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

We definitely want to include definable zones in TOAW IV. There are a host of uses, beyond simply being efficient, for zone-based events.

I really like the idea. Correct me, if I'm wrong:
A designer can define a number of zones. Each of them can be used to get some defined effects:
- be excluded zone,
- trigger an event if occupied or attacked,
- one of hexes of the zone can be selected at random as enter hex of reinforcements, etc.

My suggestion - there is an option "show the zone in the info bar" - in the case a designer can rename the zone f.e. "Belgium".

ORIGINAL: Legun

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

We definitely want to include definable zones in TOAW IV. There are a host of uses, beyond simply being efficient, for zone-based events.

I really like the idea. Correct me, if I'm wrong:
A designer can define a number of zones. Each of them can be used to get some defined effects:
- be excluded zone,
- trigger an event if occupied or attacked,
- one of hexes of the zone can be selected at random as enter hex of reinforcements, etc.

My suggestion - there is an option "show the zone in the info bar" - in the case a designer can rename the zone f.e. "Belgium".

Here are some more uses of zones:

- Localization (Differentiation) of Shock Effects.
- Localization (Differentiation) of Environmental Effects and Weather Patterns.
- Localization (Differentiation) of Guerrilla Events.
- Event-based terrain changes, i.e., flooding a set of hexes, raising and lowering of exclusion zones, cease-fire areas, etc.

I'm sure that some of the clever designers we have in the community can come up with other ideas...[;)]

ORIGINAL: Legun
I really like the idea. Correct me, if I'm wrong:
A designer can define a number of zones. Each of them can be used to get some defined effects . . .

Would be nice if one of the effects simulates a mine field. Wouldn't be difficult to write events so that mine fields are more, or less, randomly placed within a defined area, both land and sea. Maybe the effect could be something like the disengagement effect . . . around a .80 probability that causalities will be incurred.

Regards, RhinoBones

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: Legun

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

We definitely want to include definable zones in TOAW IV. There are a host of uses, beyond simply being efficient, for zone-based events.

I really like the idea. Correct me, if I'm wrong:
A designer can define a number of zones. Each of them can be used to get some defined effects:
- be excluded zone,
- trigger an event if occupied or attacked,
- one of hexes of the zone can be selected at random as enter hex of reinforcements, etc.

My suggestion - there is an option "show the zone in the info bar" - in the case a designer can rename the zone f.e. "Belgium".

Here are some more uses of zones:

- Localization (Differentiation) of Shock Effects.
- Localization (Differentiation) of Environmental Effects and Weather Patterns.
- Localization (Differentiation) of Guerrilla Events.
- Event-based terrain changes, i.e., flooding a set of hexes, raising and lowering of exclusion zones, cease-fire areas, etc.

I'm sure that some of the clever designers we have in the community can come up with other ideas...[;)]

..EvEd controlled exclusion zones with a localized(read radius ) effect ?[&:][8D][:D][:)]..

..just sooooo sweet, i plant my rice, harvest my rice then you fight, oh please..

..now if we could just put Elmer controlled forces in there, with a blue helmet...

Would like to see a subparagraph of 4.14 Command Radius added as a modifier for different scenario eras. As an example, for eras where wireless is the dominate form of communication then the command radius can be a true radius. However, in eras where the messenger or line of sight is the means of command and control, then the radius needs to be modified to include the effects of terrain.

Regards, RhinoBones

PS – Can you switch from bright green to maybe dark blue or brown? Otherwise, an excellent compilation of thought.

Add a subparagraph to 5.5 Supply points can be set to full, 3/4, 1/2, or 1/4 supply in editor.

For supply points that support both forces, the designer should be able to set the level of supply independently for the two forces.

Regards, RhinoBones

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Would like to see a subparagraph of 4.14 Command Radius added as a modifier for different scenario eras. As an example, for eras where wireless is the dominate form of communication then the command radius can be a true radius. However, in eras where the messenger or line of sight is the means of command and control, then the radius needs to be modified to include the effects of terrain.

There are already versions for both eras. See item 11.3.

PS – Can you switch from bright green to maybe dark blue or brown? Otherwise, an excellent compilation of thought.

I tried a number of other colors. It's tough to find the right combination of contrast and readability. I can experiment some more.

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
For supply points that support both forces, ...

You mean if a hex has supply points for both sides? They're already independent, but I'll make that clear.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
There are already versions for both eras. See item 11.3.

Paragraph 11.3 still describes Command & Control in terms of a radius with no regard for the impact of adverse terrain upon communications. Instead of a simple radius, I would like to see area of C&C defined as the area the HQ can move to in any one full move. As the HQ moves the C&C area moves and would then be redefined starting from the hex where the HQ stopped. Maybe a feature could be added (such as right clicking on the HQ button) that would highlight the hexes within the individual HQ’s area of C&C. The same type of thought can also be applied to the distribution of supply.

With the advent of radio communications I can see the area of C&C being described by a radius, but I don’t see a radius being applicable any time prior to radio.

In the attached picture, the hexes that the HQ is in contact with are occupied by friendly units. Using a simple radius to describe the C&C of a HQ would not be able to account for the effect terrain has on the communications train.

Regards, RhinoBones

Hi
developing paragrapgh 5.6, as only a very short version of my suggestion was included in the document

[font="times new roman"]QUANTITATIVE SUPPLY SYSTEM[/font][/b]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/b]
[font="times new roman"]A supply system based upon supply points (Tons) with a difference between fuel and the rest (ammo, equipment…)[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]1)      Units spend supply points depending on their TOE composition[/font]
[font="times new roman"]2)      Supply sources produce supply points every turn[/font]
[font="times new roman"]3)      Supply points are delivered to depots[/font]
[font="times new roman"]4)      Depots are immobile units that have the capacity to store supply points to maximum depending on their TOE (They have “supply squads”). They could be created in a scenario by theatre options available to players.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]5)      Depots have 3 different stands to reclaim supply from the sources, so that the player can control supply allocation. There is a supply lose depending on distance from the supply source, only through roads/railways/sea transport/air transport.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]6)      Depots deliver supply points to adjacent HQs, with a maximum allowance depending on load capacity (Transport squads will have a load capacity) which in turn deliver supply to units of the same formation within movement range of HQ formation (with supply penalty depending on distance in MPs)[/font]
[font="times new roman"]7)      There will be a hierarchy of deliverance of supply through HQs, so that a Superior HQ could deliver supply to attached/friendly HQs [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]This system will have the advantage, besides being more realistic, of eliminating the need for the hex possession system. That would allow fort a different movement system[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]

Maybe someone can clear a question for me. This wishlist is exactely for what purpose? TOAW 3? TOAW 4? TOAW 100? An hypotetical wargame to be? [&:]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
Paragraph 11.3 still describes Command & Control in terms of a radius with no regard for the impact of adverse terrain upon communications. Instead of a simple radius, I would like to see area of C&C defined as the area the HQ can move to in any one full move. As the HQ moves the C&C area moves and would then be redefined starting from the hex where the HQ stopped. Maybe a feature could be added (such as right clicking on the HQ button) that would highlight the hexes within the individual HQ’s area of C&C. The same type of thought can also be applied to the distribution of supply.

With the advent of radio communications I can see the area of C&C being described by a radius, but I don’t see a radius being applicable any time prior to radio.

A radius in courier movement points would be more realistic than a radius in hexes, of course. But we don't have anything at all now. Even a radius in hexes would be an improvement. And it might be simpler for the players, although your "highlight" idea would help.

Ultimately, all pre-radio units get their orders via aide-de-camp. But a command radius would allow some sensible simplification of that. It should depend upon the time scale: if you have 6-hour turns, then if you're close enough that the courier can get to you in, say, 30 minutes, it's probably ok to omit the physical courier movement and just assume you're in C&C. So, if the turn interval is one-week, then maybe the radius could be 14-hours by courier, for example. It's not cut-and-dried. That's why I prefer it to be a designer setting.

Finally, there's the issue of the courier's terrain costs. They're not going to be the same as a formed unit. I expect that some terrain that slows formed units down wouldn't have much effect on a single rider that was getting frequent remounts.

One more thing: Back to 4.14. Note that the penalty is not very severe. Players will probably still spray their units all over the place, even with that rule in place. Ultimately, it needs to be a bit more odious. But I'm reluctant to propose that until we also have the ability to shift units between formations (4.2).

In the attached picture, the hexes that the HQ is in contact with are occupied by friendly units. Using a simple radius to describe the C&C of a HQ would not be able to account for the effect terrain has on the communications train.

Good choice for illustration! [:)]