Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Rubbish. Reality is what matters. And that "cardboard counter" mindset is what's behind most of this.

That is your opinion and only an opinion based on no facts. And if middle of the hex rivers ever make sense then none of the above even matters.

Exactly. In TOAW rivers in hexes pose a multitude of problems that makes it very messy. I can't move down one side of the river or the other without being 1 hex times the scale away from the river. So if I'm playing a 50 km map I have to be 50 km off of the river to move down it. Makes no sense. Even on a smaller scale it's not all that logical. You can throw out all sorts of winding river excuses but in real life it doesn't hold up.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
"Makes no sense" if you think that rivers run in straight lines down the center of hexgrids. I suppose if your "reality" is coming from a board game, they do.

Simulate: to look, feel, or behave like (something).

That is what this game does. It simulates naval warfare which you had no problem improving so it made sense. It also simulates things like rivers. In TOAW rivers run through hexes in straight lines or curvy lines with no left or right bank. Rivers actually do have a left bank and a right bank. But in TOAW this is not simulated. It's ignored. In fact, if a river occupies a hex in TOAW, it runs in all directions simultaneously. It covers every direction of the compass. I know this because if I move from one river hex, across a river hex side to the next river hex I have to pay to cross a river even if it graphically appears that the river runs in only one direction. At least in hex side rivers you actually do have a left bank and a right bank. In inter hex rivers you have to develop convoluted programming to properly simulate a river and the positions of things within the hex that the river occupies. Now if that is easier than introducing hex side rivers fine. But as things stand how do you or anyone else conclusively know what side of a river a unit occupies or even if the unit is on both sides of the river or all sides of an infinitely sided river? That is the "reality" of rivers in TOAW.

There's more like crossing a river and then paying a penalty to attack a unit across the river that you just crossed but what's the point? Trying to introduce a little more logic into the game mechanics seems to make the least sense of all.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Not true. Reality really is what matters. And there have been multiple claims (several just today) that some count of games that have hexside rivers proves that is the way to do it.

ORIGINAL: fdski10

i'm relatively new to TOAW and found this dicussion right after playing Market Garden scenario. Playing as Allies i rolled germans without much trouble. Didn't even bother checking where the rivers are.
Playing as germans, i tried to create chokepoints on heavely defended destroyed bridges, regardless Allied units crossed rivers as they wished without any problems.

What am I missing ?
Should have I been defending one hex back ? Or is it simply that this modeling as described here is simply inadequate to simulate such peculiar scenario as Market Garden ?

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Not true. Reality really is what matters. And there have been multiple claims (several just today) that some count of games that have hexside rivers proves that is the way to do it.

I find this statement to be rather bizarre in a wargaming forum. Reality? This whole game is intended to, in fact must, simulate and simplify reality in convincing ways.

For the reasons described in this thread (and the many other threads on the topic), I don't think that in-hex rivers achieve this.

And the fact that you dismiss the fact that virtually every other operational/strategic board and computer game has used hex-side rivers for the last few decades as irrelevant speaks volumes as well.

ORIGINAL: gbaby

If I got revisited as much as this subject does, I'd move.

I don't get it, the rivers as implemented do not bother me in the slightest. TOAW IV plays well, and I have a great time playing it, even with these in hex rivers! How can that be?

ORIGINAL: gbaby

If I got revisited as much as this subject does, I'd move.

I don't get it, the rivers as implemented do not bother me in the slightest. TOAW IV plays well, and I have a great time playing it, even with these in hex rivers! How can that be?

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: fdski10

i'm relatively new to TOAW and found this dicussion right after playing Market Garden scenario. Playing as Allies i rolled germans without much trouble. Didn't even bother checking where the rivers are.
Playing as germans, i tried to create chokepoints on heavely defended destroyed bridges, regardless Allied units crossed rivers as they wished without any problems.

What am I missing ?
Should have I been defending one hex back ? Or is it simply that this modeling as described here is simply inadequate to simulate such peculiar scenario as Market Garden ?

In TOAW, since rivers pass through the hex instead of along the hex border, you have to defend off the river hex. That is, in a hex adjacent to the river. Then, when you are attacked from the hex that contains the river, the attacker gets a .7 multiplier applied to their attack.

Unless...

The attacker is attacking down a river. That is, from a river hex into an adjacent river hex. Then you can sit on the river and the attacker will receive a .7 multiplier to their attack. Ikr.

ORIGINAL: Chicharito19

ORIGINAL: gbaby

If I got revisited as much as this subject does, I'd move.

I don't get it, the rivers as implemented do not bother me in the slightest. TOAW IV plays well, and I have a great time playing it, even with these in hex rivers! How can that be?

Same here +1

What Bob and Ralph have done in the latest release is nothing less than fantastic. But there are still logic issues and even if all of the logic were cleaned up it is still an IGOUGO turn based game with all that that implies.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster

He does have a point.

Rubbish. Reality is what matters. And that "cardboard counter" mindset is what's behind most of this.

Exactly. In TOAW rivers in hexes pose a multitude of problems that makes it very messy. I can't move down one side of the river or the other without being 1 hex times the scale away from the river. So if I'm playing a 50 km map I have to be 50 km off of the river to move down it. Makes no sense. Even on a smaller scale it's not all that logical. You can throw out all sorts of winding river excuses but in real life it doesn't hold up.

"Makes no sense" if you think that rivers run in straight lines down the center of hexgrids. I suppose if your "reality" is coming from a board game, they do.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

...

And the fact that you dismiss the fact that virtually every other operational/strategic board and computer game has used hex-side rivers for the last few decades as irrelevant speaks volumes as well.

That's basically what constitutes "evidence" in this endless waste of time. It's self-perpetuating. How could anyone deviate from it with a group-think mindset like we've seen on this thread?

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Curtis is correct, rivers do not in “reality” run down the sides of hexes.

Curtis neglects to mention that rivers do not in “reality” move thru the center of the hex.

ORIGINAL: jmlima

C'mon Bob, by your own admission above, rivers *need* improvement. When you then go to accuse people of 'group-thinking' after they (fundamentally) state the same thing does not show you at your best.

Fact is, rivers (the way they are in TOAW) have issues and need improvement.

What is the best way to represent rivers in a hex based simulation, if such is the theme of this thread, as long been proven to be by hexside. The sheer amount of simulations produced over decades that do so, many for professional use, should provide enough evidence and (despite what will happen in TOAW development) you fail to appreciate this, then I'm certain there will be no argument produced in here that will convince you.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
You might want to work on those reading comprehension skills.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
...

Fact is, rivers (the way they are in TOAW) have issues and need improvement.

Whatever improvements are needed, we will want them to be based upon reality. Board games are not reality.

What is the best way to represent rivers in a hex based simulation, if such is the theme of this thread, as long been proven to be by hexside. The sheer amount of simulations produced over decades that do so, many for professional use, should provide enough evidence and (despite what will happen in TOAW development) you fail to appreciate this, then I'm certain there will be no argument produced in here that will convince you.

Same ole group-think. As I said, it's self-perpetuating. How could any developer buck such a trend in the face of such a mindset? Why it's been "proven". Nobody seems to be able to produce any of that "proof", though.

Rivers are not infinitely thin, like some kind of abstract geometric concept. They take up real space. The choice of hex side vs. through-hex is strictly a matter of personal preference, and which set of distortions we wish to live with. There is also the matter of graphic representation. I've yet to see a hex side river graphic that doesn't highlight the hex grid, and there are quite a few gamers out there who really don't want to see "hexes".

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Sigh... what an endless discussion that leads to... Sisyphus comes into my mind.

Now, for those of you 'pups' who insist on rivers not being a hex... (I personally have no issue with either of the river hex concepts), what about a classic of the mid(!!!)-80s?

Crusade in Europe, NATO commander, Decision in the dessert, etc. e.g. used river hexes, too. Did it screw up those games, no

Anyway. Let's not waste our energies here. If somebody got spare time, please create a map of the Republic of Zangaro, 2.5km/hex if possible, in order for me to proceed to the Tutorial '50s series to explain the n00bs how dirty little wars of independence work with modern stuff.. thanks!

Klink, Oberst