Defending a river line

[murphstein]

Assuming that forcing a river crossing against entrenched defenders is (in real life) a significant tactical challenge...

I'm confused about whether to place defenders ON a river line, or behind it.

The TOAW-III manual says:

"13.9.6 Unit Strengths in Water Assaults
Land units attacking from River, Super River, Canal, Suez Canal, or
Deep Water (Amphibious Assaults) have all Strengths multiplied
by 0.7."

This implies (to me) that I should defend from the hexes *behind* the river. This makes the attacker pay a 30% penalty (above) and also take a movement penalty to get into contact, as well.

The manual doesn't mention rivers as one of the terrain types to affect defensive strengths, so it seems that the rule in 13.9.6 is the only game function to affect this tactical decision.

Elmer, however, seems to like setting up defensive lines on the river hexes, not behind them. Why is that?

Or is this somehow dependent on variations in scenario design?

Thanks...

[Ian R]

Always thought you dug in behind, not on the river.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Always thought you dug in behind, not on the river.

Most of the time, that's best. There are times though, that sitting on a river hex is called for.

As far as Elmer goes, I'd say he is looking more at defending at some interval between objectives, and less at what the nature of the hexes in the area. Teaching him to defend properly is much tougher than teaching him to attack properly.

[Veers]

Behind.
What happens is that a unit attacking from a river gets a penalty. Therefore, you need to be behind that river for them to be attacking from it and taking the penalty.
 
As to Elmer. Well, I don't play him often, but if he is in fact defending on a river, the design team might want to take a look at that.

[Silvanski]

ORIGINAL: Veers
As to Elmer. Well, I don't play him often, but if he is in fact defending on a river, the design team might want to take a look at that.

..and scenario designers... I've seen objective tracks for formations set in "defend" mode with intermediate objectives in a river instead of behind them

[murphstein]

Thanks for the confirmation...see you on the Road to Rimini sometime next week?

[Trick37_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Always thought you dug in behind, not on the river.

Most of the time, that's best. There are times though, that sitting on a river hex is called for.

As far as Elmer goes, I'd say he is looking more at defending at some interval between objectives, and less at what the nature of the hexes in the area. Teaching him to defend properly is much tougher than teaching him to attack properly.

The best tacical advantage is to defend BEHIND the river. However, if you wish to keep your bridges in tact for any reason (i.e. counterattack), then I wold suggest placing a unit or two onto the bridge hex. Thsi way, if you survive the attack, you can then blow the bridge before retreating (or forcing the attacker to take that point by force---why not?). Most of your forces would be behind the river, though.

[Heldenkaiser]

ORIGINAL: Trick37
However, if you wish to keep your bridges in tact for any reason (i.e. counterattack), then I wold suggest placing a unit or two onto the bridge hex. Thsi way, if you survive the attack, you can then blow the bridge before retreating (or forcing the attacker to take that point by force---why not?). Most of your forces would be behind the river, though.

That's what I do, defend the bridge hexes as "we may need them for our counterattack" [:D].

However, if there are many bridges (as on the Weser in the BAOR 1990 scenario which I'm just now playing) you pretty much end up defending ON the river rather than behind it.

[Trick37_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: Heldenkaiser

ORIGINAL: Trick37
However, if you wish to keep your bridges in tact for any reason (i.e. counterattack), then I wold suggest placing a unit or two onto the bridge hex. Thsi way, if you survive the attack, you can then blow the bridge before retreating (or forcing the attacker to take that point by force---why not?). Most of your forces would be behind the river, though.

That's what I do, defend the bridge hexes as "we may need them for our counterattack" [:D].

However, if there are many bridges (as on the Weser in the BAOR 1990 scenario which I'm just now playing) you pretty much end up defending ON the river rather than behind it.

Why not defend on a river/bridge if you have the forces to do it? Why give free land to the enemy.

That's un- [&o]Patton of anyone. [;)][:D]

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

ORIGINAL: Veers
As to Elmer. Well, I don't play him often, but if he is in fact defending on a river, the design team might want to take a look at that.

..and scenario designers... I've seen objective tracks for formations set in "defend" mode with intermediate objectives in a river instead of behind them

Atcually, that shouldn't matter too much. Obejctives are more like a cloud for Elmer, he doesn't use them verbatim.

Ralph
.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Veers

Behind.
What happens is that a unit attacking from a river gets a penalty. Therefore, you need to be behind that river for them to be attacking from it and taking the penalty.

As to Elmer. Well, I don't play him often, but if he is in fact defending on a river, the design team might want to take a look at that.

I will.

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: Veers

Behind.
What happens is that a unit attacking from a river gets a penalty. Therefore, you need to be behind that river for them to be attacking from it and taking the penalty.

As to Elmer. Well, I don't play him often, but if he is in fact defending on a river, the design team might want to take a look at that.

I will.

You da man.

[IronDuke_slith]

Isn't the real issue the fact that rivers aren't a hex side?

Sorry if this has been raised elsewhere hereabouts, but I vaguely remember Norm on a forum somewhere many years ago saying that but for problems with the game company who originally owned this, a patch allowing hex river sides was already built and on his machine for release.

Now, I appreciate this might require re-doing, but in some scenarios where both sides want defensive benefits, some hexes are effectively out of play because they are river hexes and no one wants them. That is hundreds of square kilometres effectively empty on a map because there are no hex sides for rivers.

Is this on anyone's list?

Regards,
IronDuke

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


Isn't the real issue the fact that rivers aren't a hex side?

Sorry if this has been raised elsewhere hereabouts, but I vaguely remember Norm on a forum somewhere many years ago saying that but for problems with the game company who originally owned this, a patch allowing hex river sides was already built and on his machine for release.

I have seen a screenshot of TOAW with hexside rivers, but I believe that this was never fully implemented.

Anyway, because of the need for backwards compatability, hexside rivers would have to be added alongside in-hex rivers. This could make for some very complicated situations.

[ColinWright]

I've never liked the idea of hex-side rivers, anyway. Ugly.

[Karri]

Not necessary IMO. Plus it would bring on a new set of problems...like if the rivers are hex side, then where are engineers supposed to be for them to allow the river crossing?

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I've never liked the idea of hex-side rivers, anyway. Ugly.

Agreed.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Karri

Not necessary IMO. Plus it would bring on a new set of problems...like if the rivers are hex side, then where are engineers supposed to be for them to allow the river crossing?

Exactly.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


Isn't the real issue the fact that rivers aren't a hex side?

Sorry if this has been raised elsewhere hereabouts, but I vaguely remember Norm on a forum somewhere many years ago saying that but for problems with the game company who originally owned this, a patch allowing hex river sides was already built and on his machine for release.

Anyway, because of the need for backwards compatability, hexside rivers would have to be added alongside in-hex rivers. This could make for some very complicated situations.

Yes, it would add a host of complications, and engine refitting, for what is essentially an aesthetic (and IMO, a poor one) concern.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


Isn't the real issue the fact that rivers aren't a hex side?

Sorry if this has been raised elsewhere hereabouts, but I vaguely remember Norm on a forum somewhere many years ago saying that but for problems with the game company who originally owned this, a patch allowing hex river sides was already built and on his machine for release.

Anyway, because of the need for backwards compatability, hexside rivers would have to be added alongside in-hex rivers. This could make for some very complicated situations.

Yes, it would add a host of complications, and engine refitting, for what is essentially an aesthetic (and IMO, a poor one) concern.

Something that's vaguely related -- and that would be nice to see changed -- would be if wadis worked the same as rivers. After all, in real life they largely do.