Matrix Games Forums

Curtis Lemay, you keep saying "rivers meander" as though that justifies in-hex treatment. I don't see your argument at all. First I would note that few major rivers in Europe meander like the river in your picture. They are relatively straight and, if they do meander, it's over the course of many miles, almost always amenable to the hexsides of an operational scale map.

Also, while in a given instant an army might have forces on either side of a river barrier the usual objective is to have a defensive line on one side of the river (e.g., Rhine on the Western Front; Dnepr in the East) and deny the enemy a means to cross it. For major rivers, it's often impossible to cross without a bridge so a force won't have units on either side of an unbridged major river hex. And in any event, with hexside rivers you can also have units on both sides of a river too where appropriate with one better feature: No unit will position itself directly ON the river which is not physically possible save for naval units.

Again, no operational or strategic board game that I know of has used in-hex terrain since the early '70s. It is *that* absolute of an issue. If there was any merit in in-hex rivers you can bet there'd be new games that have it. It's just not open to question any more. I can't fathom why Norm originally made it that way except for the ease of use of riverine units (which can still be depicted in either hex adjacent to a river hexside).

I can't believe there is any argument about this. I really can't. But in-hex rivers did work after a fashion back in the old days so they can still suffice today if they have to. But it's so inelegant. No one chooses that if they have a choice. And this is a new version, not just a patch. A new river rubric for a new product.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
For sure, this will be an expensive change. It requires unique graphics that no other tile has (hexside display). It requires that bridge blowing, bridge attacks, bridge repair, ferry support, and riverine movement will all have to be devised for hexside implementation. Each of those implementations will have to have UI mechanisms devised for them.

OK, if they've lost the patch somehow then it would take some work, but fortifications and escarpments are on hexsides, so the hexside concept is already implemented; sure it would require graphics, but since every other computer game in existence has rivers, I can't see this as being a very serious problem.

The engineer mechanics are already in the game and they would need some adaptation. Riverine movement doesn't work well with hex-side rivers, so anyone wanting to use that could stick with in-hex.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
And what do we get for that? For all existing scenarios, nothing. Even for that small fraction of existing scenarios that can expect future designer revision, the answer is still probably nothing. What designers will rip out the river hexes from their maps to replace them with hexside rivers? Few if any. Only a fraction of brand new scenarios will even employ hexside rivers. What benefits will they enjoy from them? A x0.7 attack multiplier will be applied in a slightly different place. Whether that is an improvement or not is dubious.

No one has suggested that existing scenarios will be redesigned...but the whole point of this revamp, I thought, was to make the game viable for another decade or two, so hopefully we'll see lots of new scenarios. Why you think that only a fraction of new scenarios will use hex-side rivers? Personally I'm hoping that TOAW IV will attract many new players and scenario designers, many of whom will want to use what they are familiar with--ie, hex-side rivers.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
What do we lose for switching to hexside rivers? The transverse benefits of rivers. Rivers meander and have oxbow lakes (see attached). That gives them a transverse benefit just like an entrenchment does by zig-zagging. River hexes have those benefits. Hexside rivers don’t. Rivers really can be thought of as occupying an area. An enemy unit can be on the same side of the river as its friendly target and yet still have a wide meander between them.

I've seen plenty of rivers, thanks. And plenty of them don't have oxbow lakes (I won't bother to attach pictures, a simple google search will do), and the ones that do can be generally (but not perfectly) reflected with hex-side rivers. Honestly I don't understand your "traverse benefit" of winding rivers, which (unlike entrenchments) I have always understood to be unfavorable for defenders, because it allows them to be attacked from three sides. Further comments on rivers below...

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
That isn’t a “basic fact” but a basic fallacy. Contested front lines do not, in general, follow river boundaries . Bridgeheads do not start out 2.5 km long, much less 50km. In the real world, operational sized units will be on one side of the river in some places while being on the other side in others.

That's why there are things like ZoC, etc. across rivers, but that doesn't justify the "quantum-positioning" of TOAW units, which are on both sides of the river, and neither.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Most scenarios expect the player to defend every hex tooth-and-nail. The front line will gradually advance to the river, onto the river, and beyond the river. In that process, the 0.7 multiplier will be received at some point (exactly the same for river hexes as for hexside rivers).

I'm not sure that I've ever played a wargame that expected players to defend every hex... The fact that the river modifier is received "at some point" is not very helpful--the question is whether I can use it when defending a bridge, and the answer in TOAW seems to be NO. Seems very counter-intuitive to me.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Nevertheless, if the changes in the Wishlist item 3.2 are made, then defenders could receive the river benefit while ON the river hex, not behind it. That change would impact all existing scenarios, by the way.

I haven't really thought this one through all the way; it would seem to solve some problems but might create others. Also, it seems like a strange approach given your concern about affecting existing scenarios.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Coding time is precious. Graphic Designer time is expensive. We have to be judicious in our employment of them. Changes must make cost/benefit sense.

Fully agreed, but I, and I think many others, believe that the use of resources for implementing in-hex rivers would be fully justified. Again, while I can't say it is a game-breaker for me, this would be one of the most important changes for me after generally updating the UI/graphics.

See? Rivers are fun

To be the voice of inertia, I don't mind the rivers the way they are.

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
For sure, this will be an expensive change. It requires unique graphics that no other tile has (hexside display). It requires that bridge blowing, bridge attacks, bridge repair, ferry support, and riverine movement will all have to be devised for hexside implementation. Each of those implementations will have to have UI mechanisms devised for them.

OK, if they've lost the patch somehow then it would take some work, but fortifications and escarpments are on hexsides, so the hexside concept is already implemented; sure it would require graphics, but since every other computer game in existence has rivers, I can't see this as being a very serious problem.

The engineer mechanics are already in the game and they would need some adaptation. Riverine movement doesn't work well with hex-side rivers, so anyone wanting to use that could stick with in-hex.

Actually fortifications and escarpments are not on the hexsides. They are within the hex. River hexsides would straddle the hexside. And all of those features I listed would be more complex to implement than for in-hex rivers. The bottom line is that this is going to be an expensive feature.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
And what do we get for that? For all existing scenarios, nothing. Even for that small fraction of existing scenarios that can expect future designer revision, the answer is still probably nothing. What designers will rip out the river hexes from their maps to replace them with hexside rivers? Few if any. Only a fraction of brand new scenarios will even employ hexside rivers. What benefits will they enjoy from them? A x0.7 attack multiplier will be applied in a slightly different place. Whether that is an improvement or not is dubious.

No one has suggested that existing scenarios will be redesigned...but the whole point of this revamp, I thought, was to make the game viable for another decade or two, so hopefully we'll see lots of new scenarios. Why you think that only a fraction of new scenarios will use hex-side rivers? Personally I'm hoping that TOAW IV will attract many new players and scenario designers, many of whom will want to use what they are familiar with--ie, hex-side rivers.

For sure I won’t be using it. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I doubt it’s going to get 100% of all others. Regardless, it’s of no use to existing scenarios. Think of all the things we need that will affect them.

This is a revamp, but that doesn’t mean we have infinite means. (While we do seem to have almost infinite wishes).

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
What do we lose for switching to hexside rivers? The transverse benefits of rivers. Rivers meander and have oxbow lakes (see attached). That gives them a transverse benefit just like an entrenchment does by zig-zagging. River hexes have those benefits. Hexside rivers don’t. Rivers really can be thought of as occupying an area. An enemy unit can be on the same side of the river as its friendly target and yet still have a wide meander between them.

I've seen plenty of rivers, thanks. And plenty of them don't have oxbow lakes (I won't bother to attach pictures, a simple google search will do), and the ones that do can be generally (but not perfectly) reflected with hex-side rivers. Honestly I don't understand your "traverse benefit" of winding rivers, which (unlike entrenchments) I have always understood to be unfavorable for defenders, because it allows them to be attacked from three sides. Further comments on rivers below...

The meandering and such illustrates the principle. At grander scales the rivers wander around. And the larger the hex scale the harder it is to fit that to hexsides. It then occurs within the hex. Does it allow the defender to be attacked from three sides? Only if the front lines accommodate that. In that case, the defenders would be attacked from three sides on the TOAW map – but would still receive the river benefit. But the case I meant was where the front lines were orthogonal to the river. Then the meander (or wandering, etc.) gives a transverse benefit in the real world – even if the forces are on the same side of the river.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
That isn’t a “basic fact” but a basic fallacy. Contested front lines do not, in general, follow river boundaries . Bridgeheads do not start out 2.5 km long, much less 50km. In the real world, operational sized units will be on one side of the river in some places while being on the other side in others.

That's why there are things like ZoC, etc. across rivers, but that doesn't justify the "quantum-positioning" of TOAW units, which are on both sides of the river, and neither.

If the hex has a river wandering around in it, then the units in that hex really can be partially on either side of the river. That’s not quantum mechanics. That’s real world. Now, item 3.2 could clarify that.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Most scenarios expect the player to defend every hex tooth-and-nail. The front line will gradually advance to the river, onto the river, and beyond the river. In that process, the 0.7 multiplier will be received at some point (exactly the same for river hexes as for hexside rivers).

I'm not sure that I've ever played a wargame that expected players to defend every hex... The fact that the river modifier is received "at some point" is not very helpful--the question is whether I can use it when defending a bridge, and the answer in TOAW seems to be NO. Seems very counter-intuitive to me.

I’ve played plenty. Regardless, you can defend the bridge. If your opponent takes it then you get the river benefit in the next hex. Even assuming 3.2 wouldn’t fix that, is that really worth such an expensive change? I just don’t get it.

Look, if TOAW had hexside rivers, I wouldn’t be here demanding in-hex rivers. But it has in-hex rivers and doesn’t have hexside rivers. To justify implementing the latter, there must be a real benefit, commensurate with the cost. It’s just not there.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Nevertheless, if the changes in the Wishlist item 3.2 are made, then defenders could receive the river benefit while ON the river hex, not behind it. That change would impact all existing scenarios, by the way.

I haven't really thought this one through all the way; it would seem to solve some problems but might create others. Also, it seems like a strange approach given your concern about affecting existing scenarios.

My what? Where did that come from? Regardless, if necessary, 3.2 could be made optional.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



Actually fortifications and escarpments are not on the hexsides. They are within the hex. River hexsides would straddle the hexside. And all of those features I listed would be more complex to implement than for in-hex rivers. The bottom line is that this is going to be an expensive feature.

Yeah. This is a whole problem all it's own. Some fortifications are made for all around defense. But most are made to defend against a certain direction. In TOAW all of them are all around defense. Even field fortifications. Too bad they aren't hexside oriented. [:D]

I can't think of a scenario I've played that had escarpments so I can't say from experience but by reading the manual it would seem that escarpments are hex side features. If not then the manual needs some clarification.

There are some suggestions regarding scenarios in this thread: tm.asp?m=3898970

ORIGINAL: hellfish6

To be the voice of inertia, I don't mind the rivers the way they are.

+1
Given the effort required I'd rather see other aspects improved first(naval module, bigger maps etc)

ORIGINAL: LOK_32MK

ORIGINAL: hellfish6

To be the voice of inertia, I don't mind the rivers the way they are.

+1
Given the effort required I'd rather see other aspects improved first(naval module, bigger maps etc)

They have been getting worked on. Since before this thread: tm.asp?m=3462323

Ya know, this isn't something that has just popped up recently. [;)]

+1. I can imagine the case for hex side rivers, but in hex rivers make actually a lot of sense to me as well. It is clear where to place a bridging unit as it is actually on top of the river hex. The same for river units.
I did actually play a lot of games with in hex rivers and they are newer than the 70's. Crusade in Europe to name one. So I'm probably more used to this concept.

ORIGINAL: draske
It is clear where to place a bridging unit as it is actually on top of the river hex.

Is it really unclear where to place a bridging unit with hex-side rivers?? You put it, well, next to the river to be bridged. I don't understand what is so complicated about that?

I agree that hex-side rivers are not well-suited for riverine units, but question how many scenarios use them?

[EDIT] I was also intrigued about Crusade in Europe, so took a look. You're right--it is newer than the 70s (1985) but personally I think we've progressed somewhat beyond its standards:


At this point I'm curious--can anyone come up with any computer wargame on the operational scale (other than TOAW) developed since, say, 2000, which features in-hex rivers?

Crusade in Europe

Ah, Crusade in Europe, one of my favourite games in my teens... together with Conflict in Vietnam, Decision in the Desert, and NATO Commander...

Matrix should purchase the copyright and revamp all of them...[:)]

Number 1, when I spoke of games in the early '70s I was speaking of board games, whose development embraced the latest concepts in hexagonal simulation.

Number 2, it's very easy to see why this early computer game "Crusade in Europe" used in-rivers: The archaic computer technology was unable to portray any hex-side terrain at all. I'm sure that was true for many rudimentary computer games which could only specify a single terrain class per hex. As 76mm says, computer games have developed far beyond that.

ORIGINAL: hellfish6

To be the voice of inertia, I don't mind the rivers the way they are.

I know I'm seriously biased against, but this is the best argument for not changing.

We are now in an era of seriously good computer graphics, so why are we all hung-up on the idea that a unit must occupy the middle of the hex? Riverine units can move along hex-side rivers along the river on the hex-side, they don't need to be in the middle of some hex. Engineer construction units can be moved to sit on the hex-side while repairing a bridge. Engineer Bridging and Ferry units can be moved to a specific Hex-side and provide river crossing assistance to that specific hex-side.



One change I'd like to see about rivers/canals in general is allow naval movement along certain classes. Currently to do that requires adding an anchorage to every hex to allow naval movement.

Major canals (Suez, Kiel, ) by default should allow naval movement, without adding anything else.

I'd like to see a third class of river, Super-major, or something like that. There are several major ports in the world that are connected to the sea via a river; Antwerp, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Bremen, Rotterdam, New Orleans. Currently you need to add anchorages to all connecting rivers hexes to connect them to the sea. (Correction: Antwerp is connected to the North Sea by Major Canal, not River.)

Adding anchorages to all these hexes just looks funny and in the case of Major canals just wrong.

Mike

Day/Night Missions - It would be nice to have the ability to place aircraft on either Day, Night, or Day/Night Missions.

Right now placing night fighters on air superiority missions pits them against day fighters, at a major disadvantage.

Just off the top of my head I don't think it was until the mid to late fifties before the latest night/all-weather fighters could face off against day/clear-weather fighters and go toe-to-toe.

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I agree that hex-side rivers are not well-suited for riverine units, but question how many scenarios use them?

DNO and Fire in the East right off the top of my head. Well, for that matter the entire Europa series.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

River hexes could be made better for a little effort. River hexsides seem too expensive for a dubious benefit. I just don't see the case for them. For that amount of effort we could get better stuff.

I think the linked thread from 2007 lays out the case for them, I won't repeat it here.

It also laid out the case against them. I gather I will have to repeat it here.

And the amount of effort? It sounds like a patch was coded years ago...

What that consisted of and what became of it, no one knows.

For sure, this will be an expensive change...

+1

Speaking here not as an insider but as someone who knows a thing or two about this stuff, I have no doubt that these are not easy changes, likely they require considerable effort.

I think the best way to go is to offer both hexside and in-hex rivers. But all things considered -- limited time and programmer/designer/graphics artist resources -- maybe it is best to punt on in-hex rivers. For now.

ORIGINAL: berto

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: 76mm


I think the linked thread from 2007 lays out the case for them, I won't repeat it here.

It also laid out the case against them. I gather I will have to repeat it here.

And the amount of effort? It sounds like a patch was coded years ago...

What that consisted of and what became of it, no one knows.

For sure, this will be an expensive change...

+1

Speaking here not as an insider but as someone who knows a thing or two about this stuff, I have no doubt that these are not easy changes, likely they require considerable effort.

I think the best way to go is to offer both hexside and in-hex rivers. But all things considered -- limited time and programmer/designer/graphics artist resources -- maybe it is best to punt on in-hex rivers. For now.

If this was merely an update, I'd agree. But it's billed as a new product. If not now, when?

ORIGINAL: Capitaine
If this was merely an update, I'd agree. But it's billed as a new product. If not now, when?

Kind of what I was thinking...if this "new" version is only intended to keep the existing player base tottering along for a few more years, its one thing, but hopefully it is intended to achieve a much wider player base and set the standard for operational wargames for the foreseeable future, in which case they should expend the effort required.

If not upon initial release, OK, but at least in a follow-on patch.

I also have to wonder if anyone has at least asked Ralph about the patch?

been a TOAW fan or years...with this sequel...I would like to see larger campaigns and battles like an entire Pacific War, an entire European War which includes the North Africa campaign, and some real good World War I naval battles, I think that might be the best TOAW yet