Lobster, I shouldnít even bother to give you an answer, but here we go.
Any ďspacial unitĒ design choice (like squares, circles, hexes) for games IS arbitrary from the standpoint of reality, even if logic from a game standpoint. We have to choose a minimal discrete spacial unit, after all, to move pieces around and track positions. But nothing in reality leads us to the conclusion that we have to use 4, or 6, or 8 points to encircle, as directions to move etc. But after choosing, we can abstract from it (it is done, in the game), in order to try a better representation of reality and escape the imprisonment to this arbitrary number (4, 6, 8 or whatsoever) that has no logical link to reality, which is, ultimately, what we are trying to model, even if in an imperfect way.
ď(Don't think of the hex as something monolithic - it's actually a huge tactical battlefield).†Ē
There are two ways of looking at it. Either all rules are hex based, being the hex the smallest unit on the game logic, or the hex has itís own internal logic that must find continuity in adjacent hexes; it canít suddenly be broken by hex borders, as if part of two different universes. Itís a design choice. We canít shift between one paradigm and the other whenever convenient to justify game mechanics results.
Now, my real answer: I have designed graphics for this game (a lot of work involved, believe me), I have tried to help other people whenever I felt able to, and I have suggested (suggested, I said) changes I think could make things better (yes, this hex game can be made better). There are a lot of such suggestions around. All that is because I donít like the game! This must be the typical behavior of a troller!
Perplexity is my feeling about your inability to read and interpret. My english may not be perfect, but I think the context is clear enough. Where did I say hexes or RBC should be extinguished? Read my posts on this thread with suggestions before reacting like an offended child. I suggested solutions that are HEX BASED and assumes the possibility of RBC. You may not like my suggestions (itís your right), but they turn to dust your conclusions.
Curtis and sPzAbt653, I have already written an extensive text on it and wonít do it again. I just donít have the time. If you donít want to see the inconsistencies, who am I to convince you. I have structured the test in such a way as to analyse the encirclement and pursuit dynamics as represented in the game, not the combat results. The unit could stand the attack, could evaporate on the first round, etc. That would be a discussion about the combat engine, which in my opinion, apart from possible bugs, does a decent job. But movement, chase and encirclement dynamics must be consistent.
Arenít the panzers designed to encircle squads? Wonít go into it. But I was able to encircle and eliminate the squads (ALWAYS), if the unit can be divided by 6. Divided by 3 (the limit the game imposes, if we have all the equipment on a single container, the counter), we canít encircle, but will eventually kill. This is treating the hex as something monolithic, which Curtis said we shouldnít. The logic is completely hex based and not based on area, equipment density and mobility. Ok, this is a design choice, but I suggested that, if it is so, at least allow division by 6, so that we wonít need a second unit to close the gap, even if one single unit could deal with the situation.
And sPzAbt653, AP strength is the factor the game uses, and it is pretty high here, if you agree or not, so the results wouldnít change much if I used any other equipment. So, from a game mechanics standpoint it is an adequate unit to do the test. But damage isnít the main issue here. The point is the capacity of these tanks to overrun and contain the little infantry unit, even if they donít get a kill.
As for taking half a day to go around these squads?
Finally, the RBC chasing. Are they like cats? It would depend on features in the terrain and posture. Moving at high pace and keeping cohesion on arid terrain with a 5km radius hex... they would be visible. If hiding, on the few topographical features available on desert terrain, tanks could loose track of them, perhaps, but that should be dealt with in the combat resolution engine, since they would be more static.
Shadrach, thanks for your support. You really understood my intentions.
Gliz2, I must agree with your perspective here.
But even for those who disagree (like Curtis and sPzAbt653), I must say that disagreement is part of the game. This is a forum for a small community, if compared to other modern computer games. Insulting isnít the way to go, in my opinion. Apart from people here in this forum, nobody in this world gives a **** for what is written in these threads. We canít find a better way to expel people from this community than by verbal aggression here and then, the last one will have a desert to preach within, without opposition.
I think it can be a good use of my time to write long texts to suggest improvement on this game, even if they arenít accepted or even read. But I consider a waste of my own time to have to write even a short text to react to insults.