Defending a river line

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


. Sorry, if this disappoints anyone, but the future development of this engine, and style of game, is in the hands of TOAD Team.

..shouldn't that be flippers or something ?..

Don't toads usually grab things with their tongue? Of course, there's mating...maybe JAMiAM should assure us the Toad team will be mounting the problem in the future.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..any chance on another river tile, one that stops riverine movement and only riverine ?. It would be nice not to have the damn things scooting up un-navigable rivers

That's hardly a necessary change. In Seelowe I easily confine 'Thames barges' to the lower Thames. Just insert a break in the river. It doesn't even have to be a whole hex. It's quite inconspicuous.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke




I have seen some comment that the simple stuff is getting fixed first, but I would suggest that at some point soon vast code rewrites can't be avoided if the game is going to evolve. Supply, formations and replacements are generally dysfunctional and whilst improvements to the combat planning dialogues and range rings for artillery have enhanced my enjoyment, I'd willingly trade the lot for formation supply or formation hierachy and formation switching functionality.

I accept this is all easy for me to say, but then I 've spent 300 dollars plus (at today's exchange rate) on the title's five different incarnations over the years and couldn't let this opportunity slip by [;)].

Yeah. What he said.

On the wider issue of things that are done, I would (very, very respectfully) suggest that user input and solely user input should guide what is tackled.

Regards,
IronDuke

...that's kind of how we got ACOW. Oh boy! Sopwith Camels! Of course nothing fundamental was done to make the program able to handle World War One any better than WGOTY had been able to handle it.

We just got the Sopwith Camels -- and I remember the hosannas. I'm not sure playing to the crowds is really going to get us a meaningfully better product. After all, and inevitably, what will happen is that the programmers will look at the list of requests. Okay: what's popular and easy? That's what we'll get. That's what we've been getting.

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..any chance on another river tile, one that stops riverine movement and only riverine ?. It would be nice not to have the damn things scooting up un-navigable rivers

That's hardly a necessary change. In Seelowe I easily confine 'Thames barges' to the lower Thames. Just insert a break in the river. It doesn't even have to be a whole hex. It's quite inconspicuous.

..ok for the Thames, there's loads'a bridges'n' boats , but doesn't do it where the river's infantry impassable..

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright



...that's kind of how we got ACOW. Oh boy! Sopwith Camels! Of course nothing fundamental was done to make the program able to handle World War One any better than WGOTY had been able to handle it.
.

..we also got the BioEd..

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..any chance on another river tile, one that stops riverine movement and only riverine ?. It would be nice not to have the damn things scooting up un-navigable rivers

That's hardly a necessary change. In Seelowe I easily confine 'Thames barges' to the lower Thames. Just insert a break in the river. It doesn't even have to be a whole hex. It's quite inconspicuous.

..ok for the Thames, there's loads'a bridges'n' boats , but doesn't do it where the river's infantry impassable..

Sure it will: just make the river a major river. What's that got to do with it?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

ORIGINAL: ColinWright



...that's kind of how we got ACOW. Oh boy! Sopwith Camels! Of course nothing fundamental was done to make the program able to handle World War One any better than WGOTY had been able to handle it.
.

..we also got the BioEd..

The Bio-ed owed nothing to the developers of OPART. Not as far as I know, anyway.

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

ORIGINAL: ColinWright



That's hardly a necessary change. In Seelowe I easily confine 'Thames barges' to the lower Thames. Just insert a break in the river. It doesn't even have to be a whole hex. It's quite inconspicuous.

..ok for the Thames, there's loads'a bridges'n' boats , but doesn't do it where the river's infantry impassable..

Sure it will: just make the river a major river. What's that got to do with it?

..leave out a complete hex leaves a gap, usable by infantry, and riverine seem capable of climbing escarp across a river..

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Really, they're only relevant if one happens to be modelling warfare on a planet that has large bodies of water.

The reasoning, is, as I have said, to some extent circular. OPART can't handle naval warfare very well, so most scenarios avoid subjects where naval warfare was critical to the outcome. Really, the program can only handle subjects (a) where naval warfare is absent or at least peripheral, or (b) where the same side has both air and naval supremacy.

Imagine if OPART couldn't handle large bodies of armor very well -- so scenario designers start avoiding campaigns where large bodies of armor were critical. Would we then be able to classify adequate simulation of armor as 'way down the list'?

Contrast with supply. List campaigns in the 20th century in which supply was not a significant concern. List campaigns in the 20th century in which naval matters were not a significant concern.

Both are important- but it's clear which is number one.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: shunwick

I am with you on that one. The fondness for these huge scenarios mystifies me as does the trend away from operational to strategic concerns.

The problem is not so much the shift to a strategic level, but the attempt to cover a strategic situation at an operational scale. Attempting to reflect the whole East Front in one scenario just stretches the engine too far and makes it impossible to co-ordinate at the large scale.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..leave out a complete hex leaves a gap, usable by infantry, and riverine seem capable of climbing escarp across a river..

Did you even read Colin's post? You don't have to leave out a complete hex; just make it so the river in one hex doesn't meet the one in the next. Still has the same effect on combat and movement- but riverine units are stopped. Works- trust me.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Really, they're only relevant if one happens to be modelling warfare on a planet that has large bodies of water.

The reasoning, is, as I have said, to some extent circular. OPART can't handle naval warfare very well, so most scenarios avoid subjects where naval warfare was critical to the outcome. Really, the program can only handle subjects (a) where naval warfare is absent or at least peripheral, or (b) where the same side has both air and naval supremacy.

Imagine if OPART couldn't handle large bodies of armor very well -- so scenario designers start avoiding campaigns where large bodies of armor were critical. Would we then be able to classify adequate simulation of armor as 'way down the list'?

Contrast with supply. List campaigns in the 20th century in which supply was not a significant concern. List campaigns in the 20th century in which naval matters were not a significant concern.

Both are important- but it's clear which is number one.

Well, rather than quibble, I'll certainly grant that improvements to naval warfare should be number two after supply. However, number two is not 'half-way down the list.'

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
. . . stretches the engine too far and makes it impossible to co-ordinate at the large scale.

Actually, just the opposite seems to be true. The player has complete visibility and control of the force, and is able to coordinate unit activities as though there was perfect communications among units hundreds of miles apart. This is one of the same problems that was pointed out about pre 20th century scenarios.

Regards, RhinoBones

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
. . . stretches the engine too far and makes it impossible to co-ordinate at the large scale.

Actually, just the opposite seems to be true. The player has complete visibility and control of the force, and is able to coordinate unit activities as though there was perfect communications among units hundreds of miles apart. This is one of the same problems that was pointed out about pre 20th century scenarios.

Regards, RhinoBones

Butr in modern life, commanders are able to do this. Look at the respective timing of the attacks on the Gustav Line, Operation Overlord, and Bagration. They were able to coordinate these quite nicely.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
Do I really have to provide examples to illustrate that this is not a distortion [;)].

Hexsides range from 2.5km to 50km. Those are huge lengths. Forces aren't going to generally be all neatly on one side. They will be mixed. Once in a while they will be, but that will be the exception. Then there is the distortion just from fitting the river to the hexsides.

I had to look the word transverse up but still didn't really get this. The directions you move in are essentially governed by the hex system. Whilst it would be true to say that sitting on a river hex allows you to attack of it in three different directions sometimes, that would be possible with hex sides in many circumstances as well, and more importantly, river combat crossing were not done laterally. People went across at the shortest point.

Horizontal to the river. If the river meanders then the bends in the river would provide a defensive benefit against attacks horizontal to the river. Modeled with river hexes, not with river hexsides.

How are rivers not a significant operational factor? If they aren't having an effect on operations, why have any rules regarding operational factors like movement and combat in relation to rivers.

They do have an effect. It just isn't as significant as you want to make it, at the operational level. Think of all the Allied concern about crossing the Rhine. Yet, when the Allies were finally in position to take their offensive beyond it, it was easily crossed in multiple places. It was overrated as a defensive barrier.

Well, this concerns me not, since we're not going to have an "updated and enhanced" version of TOAW if all we do is tinker. At some point, the "hard to implement" stuff is surely going to have to be tackled.

Sure, but cost/benefit concerns have to be met.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Hexsides range from 2.5km to 50km. Those are huge lengths. Forces aren't going to generally be all neatly on one side. They will be mixed. Once in a while they will be, but that will be the exception. Then there is the distortion just from fitting the river to the hexsides.

To be fair, in all senses except the aesthetic the river is distorted just as much by being fitted to the hex as to the hex side. In either case, it's being frgmarched to a point that can be up to half the hex-scale from its true location.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

They do have an effect. It just isn't as significant as you want to make it, at the operational level. Think of all the Allied concern about crossing the Rhine. Yet, when the Allies were finally in position to take their offensive beyond it, it was easily crossed in multiple places. It was overrated as a defensive barrier.

I'm inclined to agree. Particularly as designers often seem to be unable to resist the temptation to put in rivers regardless of whether they are in fact significant military obstacles.

Jeremy doesn't seem to mind criticism, so I'll use his Fall Grau as an example. The Rio Grande is a river at Albuquerque. Now, is the Rio Grande at Albuquerque a militarily significant obstacle -- particularly at 50 km/hex and weekly turns? The answer would have to be a resounding no.

I suspect that often, rivers serve as much as psychological stop lines as much as real barriers. Take the Dyle. One internet search and one can see that this 'river' wasn't going to do much to impede anyone. It was just a convenient point for everyone to orient themselves to. Is this the Dyle and is 2 Yorkshire to our left? Then we're in the right place.

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
Do I really have to provide examples to illustrate that this is not a distortion [;)].

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Hexsides range from 2.5km to 50km. Those are huge lengths. Forces aren't going to generally be all neatly on one side.

All forces will be neatly on one side until someone attacks across it, which is exactly the poiint, you don't have to attack across it currently to achieve that "mixed" status.

They will be mixed.

But since they presumably started on different sides, can you tell me what IRL is the pre-requisite for the sides getting "mixed".

Once in a while they will be, but that will be the exception.

Would you like some examples of where everyone was on one side or the other until the pre-requisite mentioned above?

Then there is the distortion just from fitting the river to the hexsides.

What distortion?

I had to look the word transverse up but still didn't really get this. The directions you move in are essentially governed by the hex system. Whilst it would be true to say that sitting on a river hex allows you to attack of it in three different directions sometimes, that would be possible with hex sides in many circumstances as well, and more importantly, river combat crossing were not done laterally. People went across at the shortest point.

Horizontal to the river. If the river meanders then the bends in the river would provide a defensive benefit against attacks horizontal to the river. Modeled with river hexes, not with river hexsides.

But one minute you're telling us everyone is on both sides, then rivers are operationally underrated, then the scale we are operating at makes rivers not operationally all that much, but now we have to have rivers meandering through hexes so we can cater for "bends" which is about as micro and tactical as it gets. You surely can't expect to have it both ways.

How are rivers not a significant operational factor? If they aren't having an effect on operations, why have any rules regarding operational factors like movement and combat in relation to rivers.

They do have an effect. It just isn't as significant as you want to make it, at the operational level. Think of all the Allied concern about crossing the Rhine. Yet, when the Allies were finally in position to take their offensive beyond it, it was easily crossed in multiple places. It was overrated as a defensive barrier.

Well, with the greatest of respect, you're starting to make this stuff up. The Rhine was easily crossed because the Germans didn't have the necessary forces to defend it. Are you suggesting the Rhine would have been easily crossed in numerous places if 500 000 more Germans had been emplaced behind it?

When the Germans entered Belgium, the French defended along the Meuse and advanbced into Belgium attempting to get into position behind the Dyle.

When the Germans drove the British into the sea, what was left of the french attempted to defend along the Somme.

The Russians finally stopped the Germans on the Volga. After the Stalingrad counterattack, the Germans fought heavy battles along the Chir. After Kursk, the SS PanzerKorps fought heavy actions along the Mius. The russians handed out medals galore to anyone who could get across the Dniepr before the Germans could man it properly.

After that the Germans defended the Bug et al.

In the north, the Germans defended the Vistula and then the Oder.

Market Garden threw 3 divisions of elite troops into enemy territory precisely because rivers and canals were very important at the operational level and they wanted to try and pre-empt that.

Rivers are about as significant as it gets. If they weren't why does everybody generally seek the safety of any available banks when choosing where to defend?

With respect, you've very wrong.

Well, this concerns me not, since we're not going to have an "updated and enhanced" version of TOAW if all we do is tinker. At some point, the "hard to implement" stuff is surely going to have to be tackled.

Sure, but cost/benefit concerns have to be met.

What cost benefit concerns?

Respect and regards,
IronDuke

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

They do have an effect. It just isn't as significant as you want to make it, at the operational level. Think of all the Allied concern about crossing the Rhine. Yet, when the Allies were finally in position to take their offensive beyond it, it was easily crossed in multiple places. It was overrated as a defensive barrier.

I'm inclined to agree. Particularly as designers often seem to be unable to resist the temptation to put in rivers regardless of whether they are in fact significant military obstacles.

Jeremy doesn't seem to mind criticism, so I'll use his Fall Grau as an example. The Rio Grande is a river at Albuquerque. Now, is the Rio Grande at Albuquerque a militarily significant obstacle -- particularly at 50 km/hex and weekly turns? The answer would have to be a resounding no.

I suspect that often, rivers serve as much as psychological stop lines as much as real barriers. Take the Dyle. One internet search and one can see that this 'river' wasn't going to do much to impede anyone. It was just a convenient point for everyone to orient themselves to. Is this the Dyle and is 2 Yorkshire to our left? Then we're in the right place.

Rather than Dyle, you should have typed in Rapido.

All rivers are significant military obstacles if the forces exist to defend them. The majority of them preclude the use of armour, make patrolling or recce problematic, force attacking commanders to gamble and risk losing big, allow defenders to concentrate available combat power against vulnerable bridgeheads and therefore bring everything their outnumbered force has to the real focal point of the party, they prevent an attacker making their overwhelming numbers really tell, generally buy defending sides some breathing space whilst preparations to attack are made.

They are arguably the most significant geographical feature exerting an influence on warfare. Mountains and high ground are the possible exception, but mountains are less frequent.

Rivers are always operationally significant if defended. Thermopylae pass wasn't operationally significant until a group of Guys with shields turned up to defend it.

Regards,
IronDuke

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

They do have an effect. It just isn't as significant as you want to make it, at the operational level. Think of all the Allied concern about crossing the Rhine. Yet, when the Allies were finally in position to take their offensive beyond it, it was easily crossed in multiple places. It was overrated as a defensive barrier.

I'm inclined to agree. Particularly as designers often seem to be unable to resist the temptation to put in rivers regardless of whether they are in fact significant military obstacles.

Jeremy doesn't seem to mind criticism, so I'll use his Fall Grau as an example. The Rio Grande is a river at Albuquerque. Now, is the Rio Grande at Albuquerque a militarily significant obstacle -- particularly at 50 km/hex and weekly turns? The answer would have to be a resounding no.

I suspect that often, rivers serve as much as psychological stop lines as much as real barriers. Take the Dyle. One internet search and one can see that this 'river' wasn't going to do much to impede anyone. It was just a convenient point for everyone to orient themselves to. Is this the Dyle and is 2 Yorkshire to our left? Then we're in the right place.

Rather than Dyle, you should have typed in Rapido.

All rivers are significant military obstacles if the forces exist to defend them.

No...I should have typed in 'Dyle.' I didn't say 'no rivers are significant military obstacles,' just that some are not -- like the Dyle, which serves to illustrate my point admirably. Your statement that 'all rivers are significant military obstacles' is indefensible, frankly.

The Dyle.



And please don't post a shot of the Rapido. That some rivers are indeed significant military obstacles is not a point that I am disputing.