In-hex rivers in TOAW

[PaulWRoberts]

One aspect of TOAW that has always been unusual is that rivers/canals/etc exist in hexes rather than along hexsides.

I remember debates about this is the past, but I've forgotten the details. Can someone give us of the rundown: what are the issues, and are there any downsides to the way TOAW does this?

How does TOAW decide which side of a river a land unit in the hex is on? How do the combat procedures take into account the defensive benefits of rivers, and how are cross-river attacks handled? etc.

Has anything changed here in version IV?

Thanks!

[Lobster]

If you attack from a river hex you are attacking across the river. It costs additional movement points to enter the river hex. One thing that has changed is that a road in the same hex as a river cannot be destroyed unless it physically crosses the river. You used to be able to destroy entire stretches of roads simply because the road followed beside the river in the same hex. No more.

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

[TheGrayMouser]

re: river hexes: below is part of a response by Norm Koger to a "critique" at the Wargamer in 1999(for TOAW I) The italics is the critiquers comment and Norm's response is below it.

The full article is here: http://normkoger.com/truth.html
Norm really laid into him!!

Keep in mind tis was TOAW I many years ago and many things have changed.



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".
In TOAW II we have riverine units, something that was originally planned for TOAW I but dropped after scenario designers couldn't think of any real need for it in the pre 1956 time frame. Some Vietnam scenarios in TOAW II would be a practically impossible with hex side rivers."

[alwaysdime]

This is a fantastic read. I read it years ago but it was a fun to revisit it. Thanks for posting it.

[rileydavidsmith]

13.12.7 still doesn't make it clear for me. If my friendly unit is defending against an attack, and that attacker is making their attack FROM a river/super river etc hex, which of us is going to have "All Strengths multiplied by 0.7:" ?

It seems to me that my friendly unit would be defending "behind a river" and would gain a defensive benefit. I don't see how attacking from a less than ideal terrain hex would have a benefit.

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: rileydavidsmith

13.12.7 still doesn't make it clear for me. If my friendly unit is defending against an attack, and that attacker is making their attack FROM a river/super river etc hex, which of us is going to have "All Strengths multiplied by 0.7:" ?

It seems to me that my friendly unit would be defending "behind a river" and would gain a defensive benefit. I don't see how attacking from a less than ideal terrain hex would have a benefit.

Easy to play-test, courtesy (I might say) to various sandbox scenarios I created.

Tutorial '41: tm.asp?m=4382552
Tutorial '42: tm.asp?m=4387818
Tutorial '42 - Editor: tm.asp?m=4401098
Tutorial '43: tm.asp?m=4390285
Tutorial '43 - Combat: tm.asp?m=4394374
Tutorial '44: tm.asp?m=4397183

If you go through them, step by step (they include slides!), you (I hope) will understand most of the game mechanics.

Have fun!

Klink, Oberst

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: rileydavidsmith

13.12.7 still doesn't make it clear for me. If my friendly unit is defending against an attack, and that attacker is making their attack FROM a river/super river etc hex, which of us is going to have "All Strengths multiplied by 0.7:" ?

The attacking unit. Keep in mind that the combat takes place in the hex that is occupied by the defender.

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: alwaysdime

This is a fantastic read. I read it years ago but it was a fun to revisit it. Thanks for posting it.

Want more? [:)] tm.asp?m=1558431&mpage=1&key

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: rileydavidsmith

13.12.7 still doesn't make it clear for me. If my friendly unit is defending against an attack, and that attacker is making their attack FROM a river/super river etc hex, which of us is going to have "All Strengths multiplied by 0.7:" ?

It seems to me that my friendly unit would be defending "behind a river" and would gain a defensive benefit. I don't see how attacking from a less than ideal terrain hex would have a benefit.

It clearly states who gets the 0.7 modifier.

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

[mccartyg]

Would be nice if the combat modifier integers were moddable. Total modability enhances any game system. Every hex terrain feature should have a multiplier on combat within it, out of it, and beside it. For river hexes the greatest mod should be fighting into the hex because the attacker must logically cross the river and to force the defender out. Fighting out of a hex should be the next greatest because of reserve forces in the formation are bottlenecked at the bridging. While fighting beside a river hex would be least influential simulating lack of flanking potential. Most hex wargames present surrounding zone of control without consideration of using those surrounding hexes during an advance from one adjacent position to another.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: mccartyg

Would be nice if the combat modifier integers were moddable. Total modability enhances any game system.

Something like you mention is part of JT Panzer/Modern Campaign series. That would be a nice addition to TOAW. I've always thought giving the scenario designer full control of every aspect of a scenario would be the best thing for TOAW.

[mccartyg]

They're all constrained by 90s programmer concepts of adapting simple simon board games. Even the most complex table top games are nothing compared to the databasing potential of modern processors. They are also constrained by attempts to limit access of the users. They used offsets in the executables and mapping so users couldn't decompile the games and reproduce them. Which stifled creativity of programmers without the copyright means but plenty of know how. Panzer/Modern campaigns are exponentially more simplistic and featureless than TOAW and you can't modify their map files. At least Tiller used linear equations and exported values to that database file as you point out. Despite a map editor and feel of greater modability TOAW is more constrained by many static equations a modder can't edit and lacks any tactical scaling. If a campaign series type OOB were included in the TOAW force editor that would be a major improvement. We should be able to build a 1 meter hex tactical war game or 1 parsec hex space game with a single engine by now but, everything is so stagnant in the industry.

[rhinobones]

I believe the continued use of hex-in rivers is not because of Norm’s brilliance, but because of the resistance of the TOAW community to convert exiting scenarios from “hex-in” rivers to “hex-side” rivers. I understand that conversion would be a huge effort, however, conversion of all scenarios is not necessary. There could be parallel TOAW programs, one using “hex-in” rivers and one using the new “Hex-side” rivers.
There is a community case for “hex-side” rivers.

Lets examine Norm’s preference for “hex-in” river hexes.

Quote from Nor Koger:
"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".
In TOAW II we have riverine units, something that was originally planned for TOAW I but dropped after scenario designers couldn't think of any real need for it in the pre 1956 time frame. cc

1) “Rivers are not infinitely thin, like some kind of abstract geometric concept. They take up real space.”
Infinitely thin, abstract geometric concept, real space . . . I don’t know how this applies to real military deployment. My understanding that is all features depicted on the battle map are intended to be real physical features. Abstract is not acceptable.

2) 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.
This statement tells me that Koger made a choice. Although I do not agree with the choice, I still respect his author’s privilege to select the hex preference.

3) 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 augment about the superior “hex-in” graphics and gamer preference is pure baloney. Norm’s graphics for wadi and escarpment seem to be ok with Norm, even though they definitely show hex outlines. His argument is hypocritical.

4) In TOAW II we have riverine units
I can’t see any reason why riverine units can not move along river hex sides. The current ability to code movement should be able to make this happen. For major rivers, maybe fleet units could move up and down rivers, to and from anchorages.

5) Some Vietnam scenarios in TOAW II would be a practically impossible with hex side rivers."
Not impossible. If riverine units could travel on “hex-side” rivers and engage adjacent hexes. Tactics to patrol, recon and attack with gun boats, monitors and alligators would be possible.

Bottom line is, make the best of the game as presented. Then make your case for improvement.

Regards, RhinoBones

[rhinobones]

Edited

[Lobster]

The first obvious difference that comes to mind is that moving a river unit along hex sides would cost considerably more than through hexes. If you could somehow come up with some math formula (which would not be accurate anyway) to compensate the river unit for having to expend more movement points then you run the risk of making the much disliked turn initiative more common.

On the other hand you would eliminate the pain in the butt and highly inaccurate movement along hexes that contain rivers where you pay river movement costs just to move along a river's path.

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

I believe the continued use of hex-in rivers is not because of Norm’s brilliance, but because of the resistance of the TOAW community to convert exiting scenarios from “hex-in” rivers to “hex-side” rivers. I understand that conversion would be a huge effort, however, conversion of all scenarios is not necessary. There could be parallel TOAW programs, one using “hex-in” rivers and one using the new “Hex-side” rivers.
There is a community case for “hex-side” rivers.

Lets examine Norm’s preference for “hex-in” river hexes.

Quote from Nor Koger:

3) 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 augment about the superior “hex-in” graphics and gamer preference is pure baloney. Norm’s graphics for wadi and escarpment seem to be ok with Norm, even though they definitely show hex outlines. His argument is hypocritical.

Can't understand that argument... I mean, the game is hex based, the movement is measured in hexes, the artillery range too... the victory locations are located in hexes, etc.
The hex has to be always in your head to plan your moves and actions... how is that some gamers don't want to "see the hexes"? Absurd.