Matrix Games Forums

Joao

Only 6, not 8 directions, hence, the hex concept. Get an emulator, play it... trust me, I am old salt

Klink, Oberst

As pointed out in the first post it's how the game ignores logic with in hex rivers. I don't really care where the rivers are. Although making hex side rivers would make it easier to place cities and other terrain that does not span a hex yet keep it where it should logically be. But having to pay to cross a river every time I move into an adjacent river hex makes no sense. I don't want to cross the river. I just want to move down it. There are other cases where in hex river mechanics defy logic. Hex side rivers clean this stuff up. In hex rivers require a large amount of programming to do the same thing. Not saying make the game one way or the other. Just fix it so rivers make more sense. Or sense in the IGOUGO turn based world.

BTW, I do still play the game. Love it despite any faults. [:'(]

So, if you got time Jack... create the Republic of Zangaro map, ja? 2.5km/hex.
Just google it with the reference 'Dogs of War' and Forsyth

Klink, Oberst

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

So, if you got time Jack... create the Republic of Zangaro map, ja? 2.5km/hex.
Just google it with the reference 'Dogs of War' and Forsyth

Klink, Oberst

[:D]
I still have most of AGS, Befehlsstelle Finland, OKH Reserve, all the Axis Allies, all the German forces NOT on the East Front, the entire RKKA including Far East and everything in between, all of the air forces, all of the naval forces and my Great Aunt Marie's spinning wheel 50km northeast of Odessa in a German settlement . So maybe next lifetime. [;)]

This would make a good spinning wheel icon eh?

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Look: it's a river hex. We just know that the river is in there somewhere. We know that rivers meander and wander around. What they don't do is follow a hex grid. If I order my force to carry out an operation up a line of river hexes, is that the same as ordering the same operation up a line of open hexes? No defender would be able to derive any benefit from the river? It would be the same as if the river wasn't there? Remember, we don't carry out operations in single file - we are in battle formation.

Which side of the river is your battle formation? And why am I in battle formation 100 km behind the front lines? Seems to me column would make more sense. [;)]

I was wondering about roads that follow rivers too. If rivers meander and wander around and so we have to cross the river every hex we enter when moving downriver or upriver then roads must bridge the river in every hex also and all that that implies.

It would be nice to get at least some of this cleaned up. But then again will things get so bloody complex that the game becomes less fun? That's one area where hex side rivers clean things up nicely. Not campaigning for one or the other but both with an either or choice would be highest on my list.

ORIGINAL: jmlima

No Bob, I'm afraid that is not how it works. You are the revolutionary thinker here. You are the one that has to convince us that in-hex rivers are the wondrous thing you make them out to be. Leonardo had to convince the world, it was not the world that had to show to Leonardo he was wrong.

Last time I checked, TOAW already has river hexes. It doesn't have river hexsides. Getting them will take lots of code and graphics $$. So, the above is a pretty strange claim.

Nevertheless, I'm happy to tout the virtues of river hexes over river hexsides:

1. Rivers have transverse defensive benefits due to their meandering, wandering, etc. Just like entrenchments have transverse benefits because they are dug in a zig-zag pattern. River hexes have this feature. River hexsides do not. River hexsides are too "neat" compared to the real world.

2. Brand-new bridgeheads over rivers are vulnerable to counterattack. River hexes can model this. River hexsides can't.

3. Coding riverine movement and bridge destruction/repair are straight forward with river hexes (so's the game play). Not so for river hexsides.

The criticism of river hexes is all about where to defend to receive the defensive benefit and pay the movement costs. Well, I think we're going to fix that. But, even without that, just imagine the typical situation where a front line approaches, reaches, and passes a river defense line: The river penalties are paid once in either case (river hexes or river hexsides). There is just a slight difference in the exact location where they are paid. That's what this whole endless nonsense is about: Exactly where a 0.7 penalty is paid.

We are still awaiting to an answer to the original question on this thread.

Did you see my posts #14 and #33?

I leave with the words of another member of that cabal of group-thinking, someone that also thinks hex edge rivers are good and an acceptable abstraction, in fact, this chap seems to think they are as acceptable as in-hex rivers, it's just a matter of graphical and personal preference:

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".

It's from a chap called Norm Koger. http://normkoger.com/truth.html

Reading that, I've completely missed the part where he says that the number of games using river hexsides "proves" that's the way to do it. So, I think I'll dismiss Norm from the cabal.

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Look: it's a river hex. We just know that the river is in there somewhere. We know that rivers meander and wander around. What they don't do is follow a hex grid. If I order my force to carry out an operation up a line of river hexes, is that the same as ordering the same operation up a line of open hexes? No defender would be able to derive any benefit from the river? It would be the same as if the river wasn't there? Remember, we don't carry out operations in single file - we are in battle formation.

Which side of the river is your battle formation? And why am I in battle formation 100 km behind the front lines? Seems to me column would make more sense. [;)]

You either have to be on both sides of the river or be channeled into a killing zone by it. Defensive benefit either way.

If you're 100 km behind the lines you will be moving by road. Combat is what matters in the game. That has to be right.

I was wondering about roads that follow rivers too. If rivers meander and wander around and so we have to cross the river every hex we enter when moving downriver or upriver then roads must bridge the river in every hex also and all that that implies.

In the combat case, the unit shouldn't benefit from the road. There are plenty of other terrain types that have that issue as well. Maybe that will be addressed one day.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: jmlima

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".

Reading that, I've completely missed the part where he says that the number of games using river hexsides "proves" that's the way to do it. So, I think I'll dismiss Norm from the cabal.

Now you have to add Norm to the "quite a few gamers who don't want to see hexes" group. [;)]

Notice I didn't say cabal. That is somewhat insulting when people simply disagree.

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Notice I didn't say cabal. That is somewhat insulting when people simply disagree.

You're falsely implying that I was the source of that term, when it originated with jmlima. Even he was using it in humor.

In hex rivers work ok for tactical games. For operational not as much. Too much 'stuff' has to be made up to explain what is happening. Just pay for rivers when you exit them. There's still going to be a little logic lost but not nearly as much and it will be way more simple. Also eliminating movement costs for moving up and down adjacent river hexes until you leave the river would be nice. Attacking up and down river would probably take what you have already posted earlier. That's all I have.

ORIGINAL: Lobster

In hex rivers work ok for tactical games. For operational not as much. Too much 'stuff' has to be made up to explain what is happening. Just pay for rivers when you exit them. There's still going to be a little logic lost but not nearly as much and it will be way more simple. Also eliminating movement costs for moving up and down adjacent river hexes until you leave the river would be nice. Attacking up and down river would probably take what you have already posted earlier. That's all I have.

How would pay on exit work with super rivers, particularly at the combined arms scale where the engineering support isn't organic to most combat units? Currently a minimum level of major ferry support is needed for normal units to enter the hex, and AFAIK the amount of support affects how large the penalty is.

With pay on enter the bridging/engineering unit moves first, puts the support in the hex and following units are charged based on its strength. If the bridging units are then moved/killed/forced to retreat/etc it doesn't matter because the movement penalty has already been paid.

ORIGINAL: DanNeely

ORIGINAL: Lobster

In hex rivers work ok for tactical games. For operational not as much. Too much 'stuff' has to be made up to explain what is happening. Just pay for rivers when you exit them. There's still going to be a little logic lost but not nearly as much and it will be way more simple. Also eliminating movement costs for moving up and down adjacent river hexes until you leave the river would be nice. Attacking up and down river would probably take what you have already posted earlier. That's all I have.

How would pay on exit work with super rivers, particularly at the combined arms scale where the engineering support isn't organic to most combat units? Currently a minimum level of major ferry support is needed for normal units to enter the hex, and AFAIK the amount of support affects how large the penalty is.

What time period are you talking about? Even on the East Front major ferry support was part of some German divisions, most importantly the mobile ones but also some infantry divisions. One Panzer Division even had armored mobile bridge layers. If a unit doesn't have the ability to cross a river it stays in the river hex. To move across you move a unit with enough support to enable a unit to leave the hex. I don't see a problem.

ORIGINAL: DanNeely
With pay on enter the bridging/engineering unit moves first, puts the support in the hex and following units are charged based on its strength. If the bridging units are then moved/killed/forced to retreat/etc it doesn't matter because the movement penalty has already been paid.

I still don't see a problem. Move the bridging unit into the river hex. Move the non bridging unit across.

Which brings up another issue. Shouldn't a unit with major/minor ferry that helps others across any river have to pay something for the time it takes to bridge the river over and above any crossing cost?

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: DanNeely

ORIGINAL: Lobster

In hex rivers work ok for tactical games. For operational not as much. Too much 'stuff' has to be made up to explain what is happening. Just pay for rivers when you exit them. There's still going to be a little logic lost but not nearly as much and it will be way more simple. Also eliminating movement costs for moving up and down adjacent river hexes until you leave the river would be nice. Attacking up and down river would probably take what you have already posted earlier. That's all I have.

How would pay on exit work with super rivers, particularly at the combined arms scale where the engineering support isn't organic to most combat units? Currently a minimum level of major ferry support is needed for normal units to enter the hex, and AFAIK the amount of support affects how large the penalty is.

What time period are you talking about? Even on the East Front major ferry support was part of some German divisions, most importantly the mobile ones but also some infantry divisions. One Panzer Division even had armored mobile bridge layers.

I'm talking about a scale not a specific time period. Combined arms is company, battalion, and maybe regiment sized units where it's neccesary combine (stack) multiple types of specialized units together to accomplish missions that none could effectively do on their own as opposed to brigade/division/corps sized units that have everything including a kitchen sink but excluding fixed wing aircraft jammed into a single unit.

ORIGINAL: Lobster
If a unit doesn't have the ability to cross a river it stays in the river hex. To move across you move a unit with enough support to enable a unit to leave the hex. I don't see a problem.

Any mechanism that leaves units trapped indefinitely is IMO a terrible design choice.

ORIGINAL: DanNeely
With pay on enter the bridging/engineering unit moves first, puts the support in the hex and following units are charged based on its strength. If the bridging units are then moved/killed/forced to retreat/etc it doesn't matter because the movement penalty has already been paid.

I still don't see a problem. Move the bridging unit into the river hex. Move the non bridging unit across.
[/quote]

It's not the initial advance that's the problem, it's what happens if the bridging unit is killed/retreated/etc. With pay to enter it's not a problem since the regular unit is free to move out; and is where I see no option that isn't terrible or that wouldn't require a lot of extra book keeping on the game to make work. Being enamored of this change I was hoping you might have.

ORIGINAL: DanNeely

Which brings up another issue. Shouldn't a unit with major/minor ferry that helps others across any river have to pay something for the time it takes to bridge the river over and above any crossing cost?

I wouldn't object to BTS or something similar being added to river crossings; although the combination of units that benefit from bridging support and those that don't would mean the simplest implementations would have problems of their own.

In fact，I think it's better to add both hexside river and river hex to toaw,for simulate different style river.

Terrible design decision. I still can't believe anyone thought in hex rivers was a good idea.
This one thing kills the game stone dead for me. It's a shame because it looks great otherwise.

I notice on desert maps that escarpments are on hex sides.

.
.

ORIGINAL: Fred98

I notice on desert maps that escarpments are on hex sides.

.
.

No. They're next to the hexsides. Not the same as being ON them.

Using escarpment features as half river hex sides would be possible. Problem is the hardcoded logic on terrain effects. I have no problem with in hex rivers but, I think the coders got it wrong. Sid Meier even used in hex rivers. Realistically at an operational/strategic level formations will straddle rivers with their line forces on the near side facing the enemy while support is guarded on the river's far side. All the programmers assumed that an attack out of a river hex should be penalized and it became a meme. The penalty should be against the force attacking the unit within the river hex. That is where the river is actually positioned. So the convoluted logic behind movement and attack penalties is the cause for my dislike of TOAWs usage of in hex rivers. Which could possibly be fixed by exporting much more of the games logic to a compiler like the scenario editor giving designers greater rights to modifiers and effects.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

No. They're next to the hexsides. Not the same as being ON them.

You are being pedantic. The graphic is next to the hex side. For movement purposes an escarpment is on the hex side.

Any unit is always on one side or the other of an escarpment. I wish it were the case for a river.
.

ORIGINAL: mccartyg
Sid Meier even used in hex rivers.

Has Sid Meier made a wargame since 1997's Gettysburg? Besides the fact it is twenty years old (and no one has cited a more recent operational wargame which uses in-hex rivers), it is tactical wargame for which in-hex rivers are fine.

ORIGINAL: mccartyg
Realistically at an operational/strategic level formations will straddle rivers with their line forces on the near side facing the enemy while support is guarded on the river's far side.

Realistically, except for rather large unit and geographic scales, the bulk of units are on one side of the river or the other, maybe with patrols or other small detachments on the opposite side.