Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I see this sort of thing as just implicit in 'open' terrain. 90% of the dry land on the earth is at least this endowed with defensive features. Even a supposedly 'flat and open' state like Nebraska would have terrain of this type over 90% of it.

Yes, that flat state of Nebraska. Within the borders of Nebraska lies the Sand Hills. 20,000 square kilometers of sand dunes, some hundreds of feet high. And don't forget the Pine Ridge in the Northwest. Looks like the Black Hills what with the rock faces and Ponderosa Pine. Very little of the state is as flat as the Platte River valley I can always tell if someone has never been here or simply zoomed through on I-80. It's the ones who talk about how boring and flat it is. [:D]

But yes, I know what you mean about how there is very little terrain with absolutely no cover. However, I think that's more of a tactical matter isn't it? For operational purposes a 'flat' state like Nebraska or Iowa could be considered to be either 'open' or hilly and for the most part with no woods. There are lots and lots of creeks in both states with deep, steep sides. Wonder how that would be modeled. Certainly not crossable without engineering or bridges.

Here's something I've wondered. I think I posted it somepl;ace else too.

When a unit is withdrawn it's still part of the unit count. Why can't the unit be used again? There are alot of instances where a unit has moved to another location, out of the scenario, and returns later. Wouldn't it be more efficient to just use the same unit again? Especially with a large scenario like Fire in the East where all of the unit slots need to be used and there still aren't enough.

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I see this sort of thing as just implicit in 'open' terrain. 90% of the dry land on the earth is at least this endowed with defensive features. Even a supposedly 'flat and open' state like Nebraska would have terrain of this type over 90% of it.

Yes, that flat state of Nebraska. Within the borders of Nebraska lies the Sand Hills. 20,000 square kilometers of sand dunes, some hundreds of feet high. And don't forget the Pine Ridge in the Northwest. Looks like the Black Hills what with the rock faces and Ponderosa Pine. Very little of the state is as flat as the Platte River valley I can always tell if someone has never been here or simply zoomed through on I-80. It's the ones who talk about how boring and flat it is. [:D]

But yes, I know what you mean about how there is very little terrain with absolutely no cover. However, I think that's more of a tactical matter isn't it? For operational purposes a 'flat' state like Nebraska or Iowa could be considered to be either 'open' or hilly and for the most part with no woods. There are lots and lots of creeks in both states with deep, steep sides. Wonder how that would be modeled. Certainly not crossable without engineering or bridges.

Funnily, most of my views of Nebraska have been from I-80. Even that's got terrain, though. Genuinely open, flat country is very rare. That's my point.


Nebraska is indeed relatively open. However, such 'open' terrain is more or less built into the system -- that is the lesser wadis, and scattered patches of trees, and rise in the ground commanded by a farmhouse and associated outbuildings. These are 'represented' simply by ordinary open terrain. Almost invariably, there's something to hang a defensive position off of -- some kind of cover, and some points offering good fields of fire.

What I'm pointing out is that rather than getting one's knickers in a twist about what to do about the lesser wadis and bunches of trees and those marshy twenty acres along the creek, think about what happens when none of those things are there.

Bad things happen, if you're unentrenched infantry. Hence the need for a separate 'very open' terrain type, that can represent such areas, which do occur here and there.

ORIGINAL: Panama
Here's something I've wondered. I think I posted it somepl;ace else too.
...When a unit is withdrawn it's still part of the unit count....

Is it really? I hadn't noticed that. I just assumed that the unit count was decreased by one when a unit was withdrawn. Have you seen an instance of this happening?

EDIT: And yes, we're hijacking your stupid thread.

EDIT: And yes, we're hijacking your stupid thread.

I suspect recovery can be left to the trusted hands of Curtis.

ORIGINAL: Panama

Here's something I've wondered. I think I posted it somepl;ace else too.

When a unit is withdrawn it's still part of the unit count. Why can't the unit be used again? There are alot of instances where a unit has moved to another location, out of the scenario, and returns later. Wouldn't it be more efficient to just use the same unit again? Especially with a large scenario like Fire in the East where all of the unit slots need to be used and there still aren't enough.

I think the technical problems of "re-using" a unit slot would be far more serious than those entailed in just increasing the maximum number of units, which would achieve the desired goal and more besides. After all, that was just an arbitrary figure picked by Norm twelve years ago.

..but first let's increase the number of place names. Any 300x300 map is going to run out of place names. Hell, a lot of smaller ones do.

ORIGINAL: Panama

Yes, that flat state of Nebraska.

Nebraska: first state where it was unbearably hot and humid all day long.

I was on I-80 too (with Colin) but not in a position to appreciate the scenery.

Had you in the trunk did he? [:D]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Panama

Here's something I've wondered. I think I posted it somepl;ace else too.

When a unit is withdrawn it's still part of the unit count. Why can't the unit be used again? There are alot of instances where a unit has moved to another location, out of the scenario, and returns later. Wouldn't it be more efficient to just use the same unit again? Especially with a large scenario like Fire in the East where all of the unit slots need to be used and there still aren't enough.

I think the technical problems of "re-using" a unit slot would be far more serious than those entailed in just increasing the maximum number of units, which would achieve the desired goal and more besides. After all, that was just an arbitrary figure picked by Norm twelve years ago.

..but first let's increase the number of place names. Any 300x300 map is going to run out of place names. Hell, a lot of smaller ones do.

I've made some assumptions about the unit still being available. I'm assuming the program is using sort of an internal database pulled from the scenario. That the database is of a program defined size not to be exceeded by what that defined size is (x number of units/formations). So if the unit is part of the scenario then the scenario, saved or new, will always have a particular unit as part of the scenario's database whether that unit is withdrawn or not and therefore, when the program pulls the database from the scenario or saved game it will have access to all of the units in their present state.

I imagine if a unit is withdrawn it is given a flag indicating this unit is no longer available to the scenario. It is 'withdrawn' from the scenario. But it's still there, just flagged.

All of this brings up another thing rattling around in my head. Why not make the unit/formation database dynamic instead of defined? Let the scenario determine the size, not the program. Same for the map since it's simply another database.

But then I could be wrong about all of this since I really don't know much about the program or how it works. Just making some guesses.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Panama

Here's something I've wondered. I think I posted it somepl;ace else too.

When a unit is withdrawn it's still part of the unit count. Why can't the unit be used again? There are alot of instances where a unit has moved to another location, out of the scenario, and returns later. Wouldn't it be more efficient to just use the same unit again? Especially with a large scenario like Fire in the East where all of the unit slots need to be used and there still aren't enough.

I think the technical problems of "re-using" a unit slot would be far more serious than those entailed in just increasing the maximum number of units, which would achieve the desired goal and more besides. After all, that was just an arbitrary figure picked by Norm twelve years ago.

..but first let's increase the number of place names. Any 300x300 map is going to run out of place names. Hell, a lot of smaller ones do.

I feel kind of the opposite. I suppose it would be easy enough to do, so I don't really object -- but I can get along perfectly well without more place names.

On the other hand, a larger map or any of the various other possible improvements would materially improve the game.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I feel kind of the opposite. I suppose it would be easy enough to do, so I don't really object -- but I can get along perfectly well without more place names.

On the other hand, a larger map or any of the various other possible improvements would materially improve the game.

I kind of dread the thought of that first battalion level 5km/hex Barbarossa scenario.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I feel kind of the opposite. I suppose it would be easy enough to do, so I don't really object -- but I can get along perfectly well without more place names.

On the other hand, a larger map or any of the various other possible improvements would materially improve the game.

I kind of dread the thought of that first battalion level 5km/hex Barbarossa scenario.

Yeah. However, and for example, Operation Orient should be perfectly playable -- and I really could use a 500x500 map. As it is, I'm just about twenty-thirty hexes short of Baku, Tehran, and Manami.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I feel kind of the opposite. I suppose it would be easy enough to do, so I don't really object -- but I can get along perfectly well without more place names.

On the other hand, a larger map or any of the various other possible improvements would materially improve the game.

I kind of dread the thought of that first battalion level 5km/hex Barbarossa scenario.

It's not for the 5km FiTE insanity that you need more counters. Even the 10km one needs alot of help in the counter department. [;)]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I feel kind of the opposite. I suppose it would be easy enough to do, so I don't really object -- but I can get along perfectly well without more place names.

On the other hand, a larger map or any of the various other possible improvements would materially improve the game.

I kind of dread the thought of that first battalion level 5km/hex Barbarossa scenario.

It's not for the 5km FiTE insanity that you need more counters. Even the 10km one needs alot of help in the counter department. [;)]

If the limit was higher than it is, I'd hardly object. However, I tend to be suspicious of the monsters that would result on two counts.

First, how can they be played well? I've had at one of the bigger ones that are possible as matters stand; it can take literally two full working days to carry out one turn intelligently.

Second, how can they be designed well? All these units are really going to be properly researched? All those event mechanisms actually fire properly? Has the damned thing really been properly play tested? Hell, right now I'm working on a monster map, and I calculate that I'm going to need to put in at least 1000 hours on that alone if it's to be done right.

If people want to do this, far be it from me to stand in their way. Hell, I'm doing it myself. At the same time, there are some obvious problems with this sort of gigantism. If one does find oneself bumping into these constraints, maybe one should think -- seriously -- about changing the scale. You could wind up with a much better scenario.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


As another random thought experiment, and not that I'm laying this down as some kind of rule, let me think about what I normally want to make something a 'wadi' (although I use canal, for reasons already outlined) in the 10 km/hex scenario I'm working on.

Oh...it's gotta be about thirty feet deep, and with steep sides, and it'll need to be more than that unless it's the dominant terrain feature.

Anything less, and three hexes out of four would have to have 'wadi' in them.

For sure, the wadi tile does not have 30 foot cliffs on either side. It can be crossed by a truck for +2 MPs. To model a canyon with 30 foot cliffs in TOAW would require the use of major escarpments.

I'll return to my earlier example:

"Think of a desert. It's flat, featureless, open. Mirages are shimmering in the distance. Units are exposed - except those sheltering in the wadi."

That's fairly typical for large parts of the Western Desert - what the wadi was specifically designed for.

ORIGINAL: Panama

I've made some assumptions about the unit still being available. I'm assuming the program is using sort of an internal database pulled from the scenario. That the database is of a program defined size not to be exceeded by what that defined size is (x number of units/formations). So if the unit is part of the scenario then the scenario, saved or new, will always have a particular unit as part of the scenario's database whether that unit is withdrawn or not and therefore, when the program pulls the database from the scenario or saved game it will have access to all of the units in their present state.

I imagine if a unit is withdrawn it is given a flag indicating this unit is no longer available to the scenario. It is 'withdrawn' from the scenario. But it's still there, just flagged.

Item 12.3.8 in the Wishlist: Return Unit/Army event effect.

All of this brings up another thing rattling around in my head. Why not make the unit/formation database dynamic instead of defined? Let the scenario determine the size, not the program. Same for the map since it's simply another database.

Item 12.1.27 in the Wishlist: Dynamic Data Structures.

They are not blue. [:(]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


As another random thought experiment, and not that I'm laying this down as some kind of rule, let me think about what I normally want to make something a 'wadi' (although I use canal, for reasons already outlined) in the 10 km/hex scenario I'm working on.

Oh...it's gotta be about thirty feet deep, and with steep sides, and it'll need to be more than that unless it's the dominant terrain feature.

Anything less, and three hexes out of four would have to have 'wadi' in them.

For sure, the wadi tile does not have 30 foot cliffs on either side. It can be crossed by a truck for +2 MPs. To model a canyon with 30 foot cliffs in TOAW would require the use of major escarpments.

I'll return to my earlier example:

"Think of a desert. It's flat, featureless, open. Mirages are shimmering in the distance. Units are exposed - except those sheltering in the wadi."

That's fairly typical for large parts of the Western Desert - what the wadi was specifically designed for.

Got any references to units 'sheltering in wadis'? Common defensive tactic, was it?

Kind of funny. I've been in quite a few deserts. For starters, they are generally not 'flat, featureless, open.' But that's really kind of secondary. If there was a wadi, the thing to do would not be to hide in it. Troops defending a river generally don't go down to the water and secrete themselves in the bullrushes.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Troops defending a river generally don't go down to the water and secrete themselves in the bullrushes.

Sure they do. I see it in the movies all the time. They submerge themselves and breath through hollow reeds. [8D]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Got any references . . .

What are your references? Ever been there? Any combat expericence? Got any references . . .

Regards, RhinoBones