In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again.

The sequel of the legendary wargame with a complete graphics and interface overhaul, major new gameplay and design features such as full naval combat modelling, improved supply handling, numerous increases to scenario parameters to better support large scenarios, and integrated PBEM++.
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13852
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again.

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Lobster
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Rubbish. Reality is what matters. And that "cardboard counter" mindset is what's behind most of this.

That is your opinion and only an opinion based on no facts. And if middle of the hex rivers ever make sense then none of the above even matters.

Not true. Reality really is what matters. And there have been multiple claims (several just today) that some count of games that have hexside rivers proves that is the way to do it.
Exactly. In TOAW rivers in hexes pose a multitude of problems that makes it very messy. I can't move down one side of the river or the other without being 1 hex times the scale away from the river. So if I'm playing a 50 km map I have to be 50 km off of the river to move down it. Makes no sense. Even on a smaller scale it's not all that logical. You can throw out all sorts of winding river excuses but in real life it doesn't hold up.
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
"Makes no sense" if you think that rivers run in straight lines down the center of hexgrids. I suppose if your "reality" is coming from a board game, they do.


Simulate: to look, feel, or behave like (something).

That is what this game does. It simulates naval warfare which you had no problem improving so it made sense. It also simulates things like rivers. In TOAW rivers run through hexes in straight lines or curvy lines with no left or right bank. Rivers actually do have a left bank and a right bank. But in TOAW this is not simulated. It's ignored. In fact, if a river occupies a hex in TOAW, it runs in all directions simultaneously. It covers every direction of the compass. I know this because if I move from one river hex, across a river hex side to the next river hex I have to pay to cross a river even if it graphically appears that the river runs in only one direction. At least in hex side rivers you actually do have a left bank and a right bank. In inter hex rivers you have to develop convoluted programming to properly simulate a river and the positions of things within the hex that the river occupies. Now if that is easier than introducing hex side rivers fine. But as things stand how do you or anyone else conclusively know what side of a river a unit occupies or even if the unit is on both sides of the river or all sides of an infinitely sided river? That is the "reality" of rivers in TOAW.

There's more like crossing a river and then paying a penalty to attack a unit across the river that you just crossed but what's the point? Trying to introduce a little more logic into the game mechanics seems to make the least sense of all.

No. I've never said there was no need for improvement. In fact, I posted about it in post #33. But your idea that you should be able to move along a sequence of river hexes as if they aren't there - as if they were clear terrain - I don't agree with.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
76mm
Posts: 4765
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 4:26 am
Location: Washington, DC

RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again.

Post by 76mm »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Not true. Reality really is what matters. And there have been multiple claims (several just today) that some count of games that have hexside rivers proves that is the way to do it.
I find this statement to be rather bizarre in a wargaming forum. Reality? This whole game is intended to, in fact must, simulate and simplify reality in convincing ways. For the reasons described in this thread (and the many other threads on the topic), I don't think that in-hex rivers achieve this.

And the fact that you dismiss the fact that virtually every other operational/strategic board and computer game has used hex-side rivers for the last few decades as irrelevant speaks volumes as well.
User avatar
Lobster
Posts: 5301
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 2:12 pm
Location: Third rock from the Sun.

RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again.

Post by Lobster »

ORIGINAL: fdski10

i'm relatively new to TOAW and found this dicussion right after playing Market Garden scenario. Playing as Allies i rolled germans without much trouble. Didn't even bother checking where the rivers are.
Playing as germans, i tried to create chokepoints on heavely defended destroyed bridges, regardless Allied units crossed rivers as they wished without any problems.

What am I missing ?
Should have I been defending one hex back ? Or is it simply that this modeling as described here is simply inadequate to simulate such peculiar scenario as Market Garden ?

In TOAW, since rivers pass through the hex instead of along the hex border, you have to defend off the river hex. That is, in a hex adjacent to the river. Then, when you are attacked from the hex that contains the river, the attacker gets a .7 multiplier applied to their attack.

Unless...

The attacker is attacking down a river. That is, from a river hex into an adjacent river hex. Then you can sit on the river and the attacker will receive a .7 multiplier to their attack. Ikr.
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I’m not sure about the universe-Einstein

Q: What do you call a boomerang that doesn’t come back?
A: A stick.
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13852
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again.

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: 76mm
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Not true. Reality really is what matters. And there have been multiple claims (several just today) that some count of games that have hexside rivers proves that is the way to do it.
I find this statement to be rather bizarre in a wargaming forum. Reality? This whole game is intended to, in fact must, simulate and simplify reality in convincing ways.

How is that materially different from my "bizarre" statement: "Reality really is what matters."?
For the reasons described in this thread (and the many other threads on the topic), I don't think that in-hex rivers achieve this.

What you think is irrelevant. What is your evidence? From what I can tell, it appears to be nothing more than other board wargames.
And the fact that you dismiss the fact that virtually every other operational/strategic board and computer game has used hex-side rivers for the last few decades as irrelevant speaks volumes as well.

That's basically what constitutes "evidence" in this endless waste of time. It's self-perpetuating. How could anyone deviate from it with a group-think mindset like we've seen on this thread?
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
gbaby
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 12:35 pm

RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again.

Post by gbaby »

If I got revisited as much as this subject does, I'd move.

I don't get it, the rivers as implemented do not bother me in the slightest. TOAW IV plays well, and I have a great time playing it, even with these in hex rivers! How can that be?

DanNeely
Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 1:05 am

RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again.

Post by DanNeely »

ORIGINAL: gbaby

If I got revisited as much as this subject does, I'd move.

I don't get it, the rivers as implemented do not bother me in the slightest. TOAW IV plays well, and I have a great time playing it, even with these in hex rivers! How can that be?


I think everyone involved in the series should take that this - something which at the end of the day doesn't really matter (both ways work, both have some advantages and some disadvantages) is the only thing in this release that is generating a non-trivial complaint thread - as proof that they've done their job very well.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man ... weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not [it] an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Chicharito19
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 1:41 pm

RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again.

Post by Chicharito19 »

ORIGINAL: gbaby

If I got revisited as much as this subject does, I'd move.

I don't get it, the rivers as implemented do not bother me in the slightest. TOAW IV plays well, and I have a great time playing it, even with these in hex rivers! How can that be?


Same here +1
fdski10
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 6:45 am

RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again.

Post by fdski10 »

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: fdski10

i'm relatively new to TOAW and found this dicussion right after playing Market Garden scenario. Playing as Allies i rolled germans without much trouble. Didn't even bother checking where the rivers are.
Playing as germans, i tried to create chokepoints on heavely defended destroyed bridges, regardless Allied units crossed rivers as they wished without any problems.

What am I missing ?
Should have I been defending one hex back ? Or is it simply that this modeling as described here is simply inadequate to simulate such peculiar scenario as Market Garden ?

In TOAW, since rivers pass through the hex instead of along the hex border, you have to defend off the river hex. That is, in a hex adjacent to the river. Then, when you are attacked from the hex that contains the river, the attacker gets a .7 multiplier applied to their attack.

Unless...

The attacker is attacking down a river. That is, from a river hex into an adjacent river hex. Then you can sit on the river and the attacker will receive a .7 multiplier to their attack. Ikr.

Thanks for explanation. This makes a scenario like market garden moot point. If there is no limit as to how many units can attack over the bridge, allies will have no problems sweeping down to Arhnem.
User avatar
Lobster
Posts: 5301
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 2:12 pm
Location: Third rock from the Sun.

RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again.

Post by Lobster »

ORIGINAL: Chicharito19

ORIGINAL: gbaby

If I got revisited as much as this subject does, I'd move.

I don't get it, the rivers as implemented do not bother me in the slightest. TOAW IV plays well, and I have a great time playing it, even with these in hex rivers! How can that be?


Same here +1

I've played TOAW and enjoyed it since it was released so many years ago even though I know it has some pretty bad logic problems even for a IGOUGO turn based game. So 'how can that be' is preaching to the choir. [;)]

What Bob and Ralph have done in the latest release is nothing less than fantastic. But there are still logic issues and even if all of the logic were cleaned up it is still an IGOUGO turn based game with all that that implies.
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I’m not sure about the universe-Einstein

Q: What do you call a boomerang that doesn’t come back?
A: A stick.
User avatar
gbaby
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 12:35 pm

RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again.

Post by gbaby »

What Bob and Ralph have done in the latest release is nothing less than fantastic. But there are still logic issues and even if all of the logic were cleaned up it is still an IGOUGO turn based game with all that that implies.

Oh, I definitely agree there, on all counts. The IGOUGO system of play will always have its flaws, but I sure love playing them, and that is what counts.

Chicharito19
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 1:41 pm

RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again.

Post by Chicharito19 »

Believe me I try myself not to worry about it too much with any game/sim. They all have flaws. But in the end I just wanna have fun. If I think about the flaws too much, it takes the fun away.

Michael
User avatar
rhinobones
Posts: 1919
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2002 10:00 am

RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again.

Post by rhinobones »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster

He does have a point.

Rubbish. Reality is what matters. And that "cardboard counter" mindset is what's behind most of this.
Exactly. In TOAW rivers in hexes pose a multitude of problems that makes it very messy. I can't move down one side of the river or the other without being 1 hex times the scale away from the river. So if I'm playing a 50 km map I have to be 50 km off of the river to move down it. Makes no sense. Even on a smaller scale it's not all that logical. You can throw out all sorts of winding river excuses but in real life it doesn't hold up.

"Makes no sense" if you think that rivers run in straight lines down the center of hexgrids. I suppose if your "reality" is coming from a board game, they do.


Curtis is correct, rivers do not in “reality” run down the sides of hexes. Curtis neglects to mention that rivers do not in “reality” move thru the center of the hex. So, I question, what is better for the player. My recommendation would be hex-side rivers.

Curtis also touts the company line and champions hex-in rivers. I suspect that this is mostly because existing scenarios would need to be “converted” to hex-side and a whole bunch of TOAW code would need to be changed. This would be a big effort, however, the TOAW community would take up most of the scenario conversion effort.

Ultimately I think that TOAW has evolved from Norm’s original vision of “hex-in” rivers to TOAW IV to where a change to “hex-side” rivers is possible. Cross seems to have this view.

Regards, RhinoBones
Colin Wright:
Pre Combat Air Strikes # 64 . . . I need have no concern about keeping it civil

Post by broccolini » Sun Nov 06, 2022
. . . no-one needs apologize for douchebags acting like douchebags
jmlima
Posts: 771
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:45 pm

RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again.

Post by jmlima »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

...
And the fact that you dismiss the fact that virtually every other operational/strategic board and computer game has used hex-side rivers for the last few decades as irrelevant speaks volumes as well.

That's basically what constitutes "evidence" in this endless waste of time. It's self-perpetuating. How could anyone deviate from it with a group-think mindset like we've seen on this thread?

C'mon Bob, by your own admission above, rivers *need* improvement. When you then go to accuse people of 'group-thinking' after they (fundamentally) state the same thing does not show you at your best.

Fact is, rivers (the way they are in TOAW) have issues and need improvement.

What is the best way to represent rivers in a hex based simulation, if such is the theme of this thread, as long been proven to be by hexside. The sheer amount of simulations produced over decades that do so, many for professional use, should provide enough evidence and (despite what will happen in TOAW development) you fail to appreciate this, then I'm certain there will be no argument produced in here that will convince you.
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13852
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again.

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Curtis is correct, rivers do not in “reality” run down the sides of hexes.

I didn't say anything about "sides of hexes" above. Nevertheless, it is true that rivers don't so run.
Curtis neglects to mention that rivers do not in “reality” move thru the center of the hex.

On the contrary, that was the exact point I was ridiculing above - and have been throughout this thread. You might want to work on those reading comprehension skills.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13852
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again.

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: jmlima

C'mon Bob, by your own admission above, rivers *need* improvement. When you then go to accuse people of 'group-thinking' after they (fundamentally) state the same thing does not show you at your best.

It doesn't seem to matter what I actually said. People will read whatever they want into it. The statements I was objecting to were not even remotely related to "rivers need improvement". I was objecting to what can be considered evidence.
Fact is, rivers (the way they are in TOAW) have issues and need improvement.

Whatever improvements are needed, we will want them to be based upon reality. Board games are not reality.
What is the best way to represent rivers in a hex based simulation, if such is the theme of this thread, as long been proven to be by hexside. The sheer amount of simulations produced over decades that do so, many for professional use, should provide enough evidence and (despite what will happen in TOAW development) you fail to appreciate this, then I'm certain there will be no argument produced in here that will convince you.

Same ole group-think. As I said, it's self-perpetuating. How could any developer buck such a trend in the face of such a mindset? Why it's been "proven". Nobody seems to be able to produce any of that "proof", though.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
rhinobones
Posts: 1919
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2002 10:00 am

RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again.

Post by rhinobones »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
You might want to work on those reading comprehension skills.

Go ahead, be shit head, we'll love you anyway.

Regards, RhinoBones
Colin Wright:
Pre Combat Air Strikes # 64 . . . I need have no concern about keeping it civil

Post by broccolini » Sun Nov 06, 2022
. . . no-one needs apologize for douchebags acting like douchebags
jmlima
Posts: 771
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:45 pm

RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again.

Post by jmlima »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
...
Fact is, rivers (the way they are in TOAW) have issues and need improvement.

Whatever improvements are needed, we will want them to be based upon reality. Board games are not reality.
What is the best way to represent rivers in a hex based simulation, if such is the theme of this thread, as long been proven to be by hexside. The sheer amount of simulations produced over decades that do so, many for professional use, should provide enough evidence and (despite what will happen in TOAW development) you fail to appreciate this, then I'm certain there will be no argument produced in here that will convince you.

Same ole group-think. As I said, it's self-perpetuating. How could any developer buck such a trend in the face of such a mindset? Why it's been "proven". Nobody seems to be able to produce any of that "proof", though.

No Bob, I'm afraid that is not how it works. You are the revolutionary thinker here. You are the one that has to convince us that in-hex rivers are the wondrous thing you make them out to be. Leonardo had to convince the world, it was not the world that had to show to Leonardo he was wrong.

We are still awaiting to an answer to the original question on this thread.

I leave with the words of another member of that cabal of group-thinking, someone that also thinks hex edge rivers are good and an acceptable abstraction, in fact, this chap seems to think they are as acceptable as in-hex rivers, it's just a matter of graphical and personal preference:
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".

It's from a chap called Norm Koger. http://normkoger.com/truth.html
Oberst_Klink
Posts: 4839
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again.

Post by Oberst_Klink »

Sigh... what an endless discussion that leads to... Sisyphus comes into my mind.

Now, for those of you 'pups' who insist on rivers not being a hex... (I personally have no issue with either of the river hex concepts), what about a classic of the mid(!!!)-80s?

Crusade in Europe, NATO commander, Decision in the dessert, etc. e.g. used river hexes, too. Did it screw up those games, no :D

Anyway. Let's not waste our energies here. If somebody got spare time, please create a map of the Republic of Zangaro, 2.5km/hex if possible, in order for me to proceed to the Tutorial '50s series to explain the n00bs how dirty little wars of independence work with modern stuff.. thanks! ;)

Klink, Oberst

Image
Attachments
cats.jpg
cats.jpg (108.19 KiB) Viewed 126 times
My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.
Oberst_Klink
Posts: 4839
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again.

Post by Oberst_Klink »

... gosh, I also forgot Conflict in Vietnam... those were the pimpled teenage days on the C=64!

Klink, Oberst

Image
Attachments
cats.jpg
cats.jpg (148.58 KiB) Viewed 126 times
My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.
jmlima
Posts: 771
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:45 pm

RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again.

Post by jmlima »

Actually, (from memory) those games did not use an hex grid, but used a square movement grid.
ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Sigh... what an endless discussion that leads to... Sisyphus comes into my mind.

Now, for those of you 'pups' who insist on rivers not being a hex... (I personally have no issue with either of the river hex concepts), what about a classic of the mid(!!!)-80s?

Crusade in Europe, NATO commander, Decision in the dessert, etc. e.g. used river hexes, too. Did it screw up those games, no :D

Anyway. Let's not waste our energies here. If somebody got spare time, please create a map of the Republic of Zangaro, 2.5km/hex if possible, in order for me to proceed to the Tutorial '50s series to explain the n00bs how dirty little wars of independence work with modern stuff.. thanks! ;)

Klink, Oberst

Image
Post Reply

Return to “The Operational Art of War IV”