ORIGINAL: ColinWright
ORIGINAL: IronDuke
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
With regards to some of the points made above, I'd note the following.
1. Units making a river crossing are vulnerable to attack. You should be at risk if you're piled up in the river hex.
Why? I can see you might be more vulnerable to artillery, and this is catered for within the rules, but why should land units be able to dish out more damage to you?
I tend to see an attack across a river not as just the physical crossing, but as the whole operation.
Yes, but are you seeing it this way because it makes most sense or because that is the way it works? An attack across a river is an entire operation, but then under current rules your attacking forces can be decimated by enemy armour (that must be amphibious to get at you judging from the fact you are on opposite sides of the river) before the attack actually goes in.
Take Sedan in 1940, a battle with which I am relatively familiar.
As am I, I'm designing a scenario around it for a forthcoming title.
Now, at a typical OPART scale of one day or half a week, the actual crossing is only a fraction of the battle: anywhere from an hour to a few hours.
Indeed it is, but then the actual crossing would only take a few hours because you wouldn't (or probably wouldn't) use up the entire turn doing it. You'd use up 30% of your day or "anywhere from an hour to a few hours"..
Nevertheless, for the bulk of the turn, the Germans are indeed in a less than ideal position, with only light forces on the west bank, the bulk of their tanks, artillery, and supplies still on the east bank, and the engineers frantically trying to build a bridge to change that.
These actions are in the game in the phase after the attack but before the end of the turn.
The Germans are vulnerable to attack. They cannot just fall back and defend behind the river. They get hit now, and they get hurt.
But when they get hit, their entire force suffers the assault. How can this be when you yourself have described to us how.................
with only light forces on the west bank, the bulk of their tanks, artillery, and supplies still on the east bank, and the engineers frantically trying to build a bridge to change that.
You can't have it both ways. The Germans are either across the river or they aren't. You want few across the river to allow that vulnerability you're after but many across the river when the attack goes in. It simply doesn't add up.
This argument could get interminable, but I'd say you're seeing 'crossing the river' as simply the physical act.
But the game does, otherwise it wouldn't allow you more opportunity to do things after the attack has been resolved (and the river crossed) but before the turn ends, like widen the bridgehead, build a bridge, dig into defend.
At the level OPART operates, I'd say it's crossing the river, clearing the defenders from the opposite bank, establishing some sort of decent communications to the rear, and carving out a defensible position of your own on the other side. Until all this is done, you're not in a good defensive position. You can't just defend 'from your side' if the enemy attacks.
As above for the first part, everything you describe happens after the assault already. For the second part...
You can't just defend 'from your side' if the enemy attacks.
You surely can or should expect to if you haven't attempted to even cross the river yet.
I have no problem at all with the current model, where you move onto the river hex and are in a lousy position until you fight your way off of it. Generally, it seems to me to about reflect the way things are.
How? Occupation of the river hex in itself deems you to have successfully carried the water by assault, because counterattacks find you on the wrong side for defensive purposes, whether you have tried to get across or not. How does this even remotely reflect reality?
2. Usually, the assault has to be made first and the bulk of the crossing second. See for example the German crossings of the Meuse on 13 May. Infantry over first -- armor only starting to cross 12-24 hours later. The assault should eat up MP's.
But the assault does eat up clock, which in turn eats up unused MPs. The armour would follow the infantry across but start its movement with less movement allowance following the assault. Given the rules as they stand allow you to rebuild blown bridges in full view of enemy machine gun and artillery fire before you actually make the assault, allowing armour to stream across on the assault turn rather merrily, how is the current system any better?
Let's assume you're right here: that the current system isn't any better. So? I don't really need to demonstrate that the current system is better in all respects -- just that the advantages of the current system minus the disadvantages comes out to about the same value as the advantages of the proposed change minus the disadvantages.
But I don't believe that you have demonstrated that. You are describing (as part of the attack) things which are catered for later in the turn. You talk about the myriad of things getting out of the river hex represents to you, but then the player has to go and do them all for real after the attack by forcing more troops ascross, digging into defend against counterattack etc.
On this point at least, you're effectively conceding that there's nothing to choose between the two. If it's about a wash overall, I'll stick with the aesthetically pleasing rivers in the middle of hexes.
How am I effectively conceding? You have described a host of reasons that make no sense to me. The extra things you say I'm not seeing are in the game at a secondary stage of the turn, not in the phase you describe. The player is vulnerable at these points if he doesn't do them, so why be vulnerable twice. You still haven't explained why the player should be vulnerable before he has even launched the attack?
Ultimately, the only argument I understand is that you think they look better. For me, that doesn't come into it.
3. Under the hex-side rivers proposal as stated above, the engineers would fix the bridge from their own 'side.' So one could just fix the bridge whenever, and then be all set to storm across and go on one's way without any delay at all when ready.
Incorrect, I wouldn't allow bridges to be repaired unless both sides of the road that crossed the river were in your hands.
That sounds okay -- but it wasn't what was said earlier.[/quote]
I never said what was said earlier.
As above, you can repair bridge hexes now without being in possession of the far bank, so engineers technically repair it from their own side now, (unless they are attacked apparently at which point they are deemed to have repaired it from the enemy's side - without actually moving the enemy out first or changing their own position but never mind).
As things stand, you would recreate the Meuse currently by:
Forcing the French out of Wadlincourt river bridge hex/town, rebuilding the bridge on turn 4 (say), storming across on turn 5 to take the far bank and then bringing the tanks across a bridge later on in turn 5 on a bridge that was built on turn four and which had managed (on turn 4) to stretch right across the river to a machine gun and weapons pit infested far bank that wasn't actually cleared until turn 5.
I would like to meet the engineers who managed that.
Regards,
IronDuke
I see your above description as simply not looking at things from the OPART scale.
You were talking about single day turns etc earlier. What is the Opart scale? Ultimately, everything you see as part of the assault is more properly part of the part of the turn left after the assault, which is where it is generally handled currently. You want to clear space on the far bank? Fine, launch further assaults with the troops who got across into adjacent hexes. You want to dig into the defend the bridgehead? Fine - tell your units to dig in.
The crossing doesn't spread out over several turns -- it's all in one turn.
Yes, all in one turn that has multiple phases and which therefore can cope with a multiple layered crossing without trying to abstract the thing to cover for a flaw in River rules.
I'll grant that the bridge repair situation you describe isn't perfect -- but you will have to get out onto that blown bridge hex to fix that bridge. You're also going to need to attack from that hex -- which is what should happen.
None of which makes up for the point we agree on.
OPART offers designers the opportunity to model a lot of situations at a lot of scales. Obviously, one can find time and scales where in some situations it falls down. However, I just don't see the overwhelming advantages of hex side rivers. Generally speaking, I think the attacker should be vulnerable when he moves onto that river hex. It does get a bit strange at the larger scales -- but then, the hex side rivers would look strange to me at all scales. I'm for leaving things as they are in this respect -- since the change doesn't seem to offer any compelling advantages.
I wholeheartedly disagree. I think it falls down everywhere. Anyone who thinks I'm wrong, take all the rivers out of FITE and try the scenario then to see the impact rivers have. Rivers are a crucial piece of the kit and errors here have a significant impact.
regards,
IronDuke
