basic game rule question

[jjdenver]

Hi,

Is it better to put your units on a river hex for defense, or behind the river hex in the next hex...i.e. with the attacker having to move onto the river hex then attack your defenders from the river hex?

Thanks

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: jjdenver

Hi,

Is it better to put your units on a river hex for defense, or behind the river hex in the next hex...i.e. with the attacker having to move onto the river hex then attack your defenders from the river hex?

Thanks

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.

So, the answer is... Yes - behind a river hex is beneficial for the defender.

Klink, Oberst

[Josh]

Good question John, TOAW is one of the very few games that I know that has the rivers not on the edge of a hex but *through* a hex, and it has always been a source of confusion. Me wonders if this will change one day?

[jjdenver]

Ok thanks for the clarification. Also if I have a unit that is mostly artillery and it has a range of 1. If it is behind a defender's hex can it participate if the defender is attacked? Or does it have to be in the defending hex? Also what if this unit with artillery is an HQ unit and its artillery sub-units (i.e. if I look at unit report the squads there like 105mm howiztzer) have a range of 1.

[sPzAbt653]

Yes, one hex behind is good. Some artillery units will cooperate, depending on the scenario settings. Put them one hex behind the defending unit and dig them in or put them in 'T' status. Then watch the combat reports to see if they are supporting, or watch their supply levels for fluctuation due to support.

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: Josh

Good question John, TOAW is one of the very few games that I know that has the rivers not on the edge of a hex but *through* a hex, and it has always been a source of confusion. Me wonders if this will change one day?

Josh,

as per Norm's reply to The Wargamer:

Rivers run through the hex (I thought this obsolete design concept went away a long time ago). Marsh has only an anti-armor multiplier effect.

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".

The whole concept or way of Norm's thnking can be found at:

http://normkoger.com/truth.html

Regards,

Klink, Oberst

[Panama]

Nor are all rivers 50 km, 25 km, 10km, etc., wide. Especially minor rivers. Most terrain highlights the hex grid and all gamers are forced to 'see' the hexes because it is a hex based game afterall.

Anyway, I don't see the game being changed to rivers on hexsides. I think it might take far too much work.

[newtigersqn]

I much prefer through-hex rivers. Seems more realistic somehow.

[orabera]

I read Norm's comments about his game, and I agree with many of them. On the other I do agree with a couple of the reviewers comments.

We're still stuck with tiny windows that only allow a partial view, if a unit can have 24 pieces of equipment, why can't we see them all at once? Scroll through units while scrolling through each unit to see equipment. Event viewer, three events at one time? Many of us now have 23-27 inch monitors and it would be nice to use all that space. Everyone else does it has never convinced me of anything.

Rivers and hex versus hex side. Arguments for both sides, the decisive one for me is a unit attacking across a river and after the attack fails the bad guys counter-attack and encircle the attacking force. With hex side rivers, they can fight their out away from the river. With river hexes, every attack they make, even to their former rear, is across a river.

[rhinobones]

The subject of "hex-in" vs "hex-side" rivers has been a point of much debate.

The hard core TOAW advocates seem to prefer the hex-in position. This is their preference and I presume it is based on Norm's original TOAW design.
Myself, and a few other people, would like to see a new TOWA based on a river "hex-side" layout. Also, to top this off, we would like to see a new TOAW system evolve from the board game TOAW IGO-YGO version to a modern WE-GO version.

Regards, RhinoBones