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