Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Wish List

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> RE: Wish List Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Wish List - 7/17/2015 9:02:32 PM   
Freyr Oakenshield


Posts: 528
Joined: 4/25/2014
Status: offline
I beg you, make it possible to save during PBEM. It will greatly facilitate the playing of monster scenarios such as FitE.

(in reply to berto)
Post #: 31
RE: Wish List - 7/18/2015 1:59:19 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 13060
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Freyr Oakenshield

I beg you, make it possible to save during PBEM. It will greatly facilitate the playing of monster scenarios such as FitE.


?? You can do that now.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Freyr Oakenshield)
Post #: 32
RE: Wish List - 7/18/2015 2:13:07 PM   
Freyr Oakenshield


Posts: 528
Joined: 4/25/2014
Status: offline
...and it's not acting up? My opponent will get no "reload" messages if I save a few times?

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 33
RE: Wish List - 7/20/2015 3:26:06 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3395
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline
Your opponent dos get "reload" messages if you save- that is the point - it is a point of honour and free time to be able to get through a FITE move without savng.........but it's no realistic to expect it every move!!

(in reply to Freyr Oakenshield)
Post #: 34
RE: Wish List - 7/20/2015 5:45:25 AM   
76mm


Posts: 4659
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: timmyab
In-hex rivers has always been a game breaker for me. Never could take it seriously as a result. Put rivers on hex sides and I'll be a buyer.


I wouldn't call it a game-breaker, but I much much prefer hex-side rivers. Having read the arguments for in-hex rivers, I am completely unconvinced. I noticed this in the linked thread (from 2007):
*************
Sorry if this has been raised elsewhere hereabouts, but I vaguely remember Norm on a forum somewhere many years ago saying that but for problems with the game company who originally owned this, a patch allowing hex river sides was already built and on his machine for release.
*************

I really hope that hex-side rivers will be introduced along with in-hex rivers.

(in reply to timmyab)
Post #: 35
RE: Wish List - 7/20/2015 12:16:43 PM   
lecrop


Posts: 412
Joined: 4/14/2009
Status: offline
Will pre-XX century scens be included with the new game or the possibility to create new ones?

< Message edited by lecrop -- 7/20/2015 2:48:48 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 36
RE: Wish List - 7/20/2015 1:56:57 PM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: timmyab
In-hex rivers has always been a game breaker for me. Never could take it seriously as a result. Put rivers on hex sides and I'll be a buyer.


I wouldn't call it a game-breaker, but I much much prefer hex-side rivers. Having read the arguments for in-hex rivers, I am completely unconvinced. I noticed this in the linked thread (from 2007):
*************
Sorry if this has been raised elsewhere hereabouts, but I vaguely remember Norm on a forum somewhere many years ago saying that but for problems with the game company who originally owned this, a patch allowing hex river sides was already built and on his machine for release.
*************

I really hope that hex-side rivers will be introduced along with in-hex rivers.


It's really bizarre to me that TOAW continues to persist with in-hex rivers. Back in the dark ages of wargaming Avalon Hill games used the in-hex river system. There were always issues about crossing the things due to the inability to tell at a glance on which side of the river was the unit. I don't recall which game was the first with hexside rivers but once it was done all in-hex rivers disappeared, to the point that I can't recall a single game now that uses them. And I don't know of any argument at all favoring them.

It's also very telling that Norm had already added hexside rivers to the game as the quote above indicates, but it never made it to an official version due to some administrative snafu.

If you look at the leading hex-based computer wargames, none save TOAW use in-hex rivers. It's just difficult to believe hexside rivers can't be added to a new version here, at least as a scenario designer's option.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 37
RE: Wish List - 7/20/2015 2:20:41 PM   
Freyr Oakenshield


Posts: 528
Joined: 4/25/2014
Status: offline
quote:

If you look at the leading hex-based computer wargames, none save TOAW use in-hex rivers. It's just difficult to believe hexside rivers can't be added to a new version here, at least as a scenario designer's option.


I second that. No boardgames known to me put rivers in the middle of a hex... IMO, there should at least be an option like that for designers of future scenarios.

(in reply to Capitaine)
Post #: 38
RE: Wish List - 7/20/2015 6:17:33 PM   
Crossroads


Posts: 17056
Joined: 7/5/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Freyr Oakenshield

quote:

If you look at the leading hex-based computer wargames, none save TOAW use in-hex rivers. It's just difficult to believe hexside rivers can't be added to a new version here, at least as a scenario designer's option.


I second that. No boardgames known to me put rivers in the middle of a hex... IMO, there should at least be an option like that for designers of future scenarios.


Avalon Hill's Panzerblitz, Panzer Leader, for starters? Advanced Squad Leader too as I recall. You said boardgames right


_____________________________

Visit us at: Campaign Series Legion
---
CS: Vietnam 1948-1967 AVAILABLE SOON
CS: Middle East 1948-1985 2.0 Fully Reimaged - Available Now

(in reply to Freyr Oakenshield)
Post #: 39
RE: Wish List - 7/20/2015 6:49:46 PM   
76mm


Posts: 4659
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Crossroads
Avalon Hill's Panzerblitz, Panzer Leader, for starters? Advanced Squad Leader too as I recall.


hmmm, of course all of these games are, what, forty years old? And hexes in ASL are all of 40 meters wide, so I'm not sure that counts!

(in reply to Crossroads)
Post #: 40
RE: Wish List - 7/20/2015 7:08:45 PM   
Freyr Oakenshield


Posts: 528
Joined: 4/25/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Crossroads


quote:

ORIGINAL: Freyr Oakenshield

quote:

If you look at the leading hex-based computer wargames, none save TOAW use in-hex rivers. It's just difficult to believe hexside rivers can't be added to a new version here, at least as a scenario designer's option.


I second that. No boardgames known to me put rivers in the middle of a hex... IMO, there should at least be an option like that for designers of future scenarios.


Avalon Hill's Panzerblitz, Panzer Leader, for starters? Advanced Squad Leader too as I recall. You said boardgames right



I meant "computer" board games - TOAW, JT's/HPS's Campaigns, SSG's Decisive Battles, Decisive Campaigns, JT's Campaign Series - they are technically "board games," as there is a board with hexes, and counters you move. Anyway, except for TOAW, none of them have got rivers in the middle of hexes...

edit:
Not to mention: GG's WitE...


edit2:
or should I have said: computerised board games




< Message edited by Freyr Oakenshield -- 7/20/2015 8:19:22 PM >

(in reply to Crossroads)
Post #: 41
RE: Wish List - 7/20/2015 8:14:57 PM   
Crossroads


Posts: 17056
Joined: 7/5/2009
Status: offline
Well you said what you said

Oh there were Avalon Hill (card) board games with hex side rivers too. So there. And they do count. Classics.

I quite like the TOAW mid hex rivers by the way. TOAW is unique in many other ways too so why not here. So I guess this is one vote to keep them where they are. Of course this is a wish list, so what I was mostly pointing out was that mid hex rivers are not a rarity as such.

If the dev team manages to support both why not.

_____________________________

Visit us at: Campaign Series Legion
---
CS: Vietnam 1948-1967 AVAILABLE SOON
CS: Middle East 1948-1985 2.0 Fully Reimaged - Available Now

(in reply to Freyr Oakenshield)
Post #: 42
RE: Wish List - 7/20/2015 9:26:42 PM   
Falcon1


Posts: 171
Joined: 4/30/2012
From: United States
Status: offline
The in-hex rivers could be made to work if the effects were reversed. If you ask me, the unit that is actually in the river hex should be able to determine how the river will affect the battle. Right now it seems like the unit in the dry land gets to decide.

So, river hexes should provide a defensive bonus, because the unit in the river hex would obviously position themselves behind the river when preparing to defend. There should NOT be a penalty for attacking out of a river hex, because the attacker would never position themselves behind the river. It wouldn't even be possible to attack a unit in a different hex with direct fire, since you would have to be firing at a range of at least half the scale of a hex.

_____________________________


(in reply to Crossroads)
Post #: 43
RE: Wish List - 7/20/2015 9:53:33 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 13060
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Falcon1

The in-hex rivers could be made to work if the effects were reversed. If you ask me, the unit that is actually in the river hex should be able to determine how the river will affect the battle. Right now it seems like the unit in the dry land gets to decide.

So, river hexes should provide a defensive bonus, because the unit in the river hex would obviously position themselves behind the river when preparing to defend. There should NOT be a penalty for attacking out of a river hex, because the attacker would never position themselves behind the river. It wouldn't even be possible to attack a unit in a different hex with direct fire, since you would have to be firing at a range of at least half the scale of a hex.


That's similar to item 3.2 in the wishlist. River hexes could be made better for a little effort. River hexsides seem too expensive for a dubious benefit. I just don't see the case for them. For that amount of effort we could get better stuff.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Falcon1)
Post #: 44
RE: Wish List - 7/20/2015 11:22:44 PM   
hellfish6


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline
More than two sides per scenario. I like what Command does and you add pretty much as many sides as you need (Red, Blue, Green, neutral, whatever) and set their 'attitude' to each other (enemy, unfriendly, neutral, allied, etc.). Bonus for events allowing side-specific attitude changes.

_____________________________


(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 45
RE: Wish List - 7/21/2015 1:56:17 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3395
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Falcon1

The in-hex rivers could be made to work if the effects were reversed. If you ask me, the unit that is actually in the river hex should be able to determine how the river will affect the battle. Right now it seems like the unit in the dry land gets to decide.


That's pretty much irrelevant IMO - if you want to "defend the river" you put your units in whatever position gives that advantage. Whether that be "in" the river hex or adjacent to it doesn't really matter - both sides get to decide when a river affects combat - one by "adopting the position", the other by attacking it..

(in reply to Falcon1)
Post #: 46
RE: Wish List - 7/21/2015 2:39:44 AM   
76mm


Posts: 4659
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
River hexes could be made better for a little effort. River hexsides seem too expensive for a dubious benefit. I just don't see the case for them. For that amount of effort we could get better stuff.


I think the linked thread from 2007 lays out the case for them, I won't repeat it here.

And the amount of effort? It sounds like a patch was coded years ago...

Any "fix" does not account for the basic fact that a unit is generally on one side of the river or the other, while this is not true of a unit in a (potentially 50 km wide) river hex.

It might be helpful if you could explain how to properly defend a bridge with in-hex rivers, because right now I don't get it; to defend a bridge I'm supposed to occupy the river hex (with no defensive bonus for the river), which makes the unit stick out of the defending line, without any benefits from the river, rendering the defender very vulnerable. If the defender doesn't occupy the bridge hex, the attacker can just waltz in and take it. Doesn't make any sense to me...



< Message edited by 76mm -- 7/21/2015 4:16:29 AM >

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 47
RE: Wish List - 7/21/2015 3:46:06 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3395
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline
So don't defend the bridge - destroy it an make the other guy pay extra movement to attack you!!

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 48
RE: Wish List - 7/21/2015 4:18:02 AM   
Falcon1


Posts: 171
Joined: 4/30/2012
From: United States
Status: offline
If hex side rivers are off the table, then I guess it doesn't really matter if you change the attack/defend properties of the hex. The current method has the advantage of many scenarios designed with this method in mind, and also seems to fit in well with the idea of using engineers' ferry ability, bridge repair, etc.

_____________________________


(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 49
RE: Wish List - 7/21/2015 4:49:11 AM   
76mm


Posts: 4659
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
So don't defend the bridge - destroy it an make the other guy pay extra movement to attack you!!


Seems like an artificial solution to me, maybe I don't want to destroy the bridge?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Falcon1
The current method has the advantage of many scenarios designed with this method in mind, and also seems to fit in well with the idea of using engineers' ferry ability, bridge repair, etc.

I'm starting to feel rather dense, because I really don't understand the arguments people are putting forth for in-hex rivers. Sure, the existing scenarios all use in-hex rivers, and no one is suggesting getting rid of them--that would be problematic. But why not also provide hex-side rivers for future scenarios?

Regarding engineers, I don't understand why you need to have in-hex rivers to have engineers ferry and repair bridges? PzC also has these features with hex-side rivers, and it works just fine.

(in reply to Falcon1)
Post #: 50
RE: Wish List - 7/21/2015 6:24:32 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9443
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

circling through the entrained units is only possible if you actually disembark them.


Not true, The Dot/Period button on the keyboard will bring you to an embarked unit, you move it, hit the dot again to advance to the next embarked unit. Or don't move it and it disembarks. Easy peasy.

(in reply to Freyr Oakenshield)
Post #: 51
RE: Wish List - 7/21/2015 10:27:23 AM   
Freyr Oakenshield


Posts: 528
Joined: 4/25/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Freyr Oakenshield

I beg you, make it possible to save during PBEM. It will greatly facilitate the playing of monster scenarios such as FitE.


?? You can do that now.




quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

circling through the entrained units is only possible if you actually disembark them.


Not true, The Dot/Period button on the keyboard will bring you to an embarked unit, you move it, hit the dot again to advance to the next embarked unit. Or don't move it and it disembarks. Easy peasy.


This truly is an amazing thread! It's only two pages long and I've already learnt two new things about TOAW I didn't even know existed, even though I've been playing the game for 16 ys now...

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 52
RE: Wish List - 7/21/2015 10:41:07 AM   
Falcon1


Posts: 171
Joined: 4/30/2012
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I'm starting to feel rather dense...


Maybe just a little bit because I'm not arguing in favor of in hex rivers.

You took one sentence from my post and quoted it completely out of context.
That post was about the idea of reversing the effects of river hexes, as compared to leaving the rules alone.
Notice I started with "if hex side rivers are off the table", because hex side rivers are my first choice.
But they do seem to be off the table from what I have seen so far.

< Message edited by Falcon1 -- 7/21/2015 12:16:30 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 53
RE: Wish List - Exclusiion zones? - 7/21/2015 10:58:03 AM   
LOK32MK

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 7/19/2015
Status: offline
Is there any possibility of increasing the number of exclusion zones? It would be helpful in bigger scenarios with several countries that start as neutral. Honor rules work OK right now but more exclusion zones would make it easier/better.
Thank you

(in reply to Falcon1)
Post #: 54
RE: Wish List - 7/21/2015 12:59:07 PM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crossroads


quote:

ORIGINAL: Freyr Oakenshield

quote:

If you look at the leading hex-based computer wargames, none save TOAW use in-hex rivers. It's just difficult to believe hexside rivers can't be added to a new version here, at least as a scenario designer's option.


I second that. No boardgames known to me put rivers in the middle of a hex... IMO, there should at least be an option like that for designers of future scenarios.


Avalon Hill's Panzerblitz, Panzer Leader, for starters? Advanced Squad Leader too as I recall. You said boardgames right



Those are all tactical games where being "in" a stream/gully hex actually has significance to LOS and defense. Operational or strategic games do not use in-hex watercourses.

(in reply to Crossroads)
Post #: 55
RE: Wish List - Exclusiion zones? - 7/21/2015 1:05:09 PM   
Freyr Oakenshield


Posts: 528
Joined: 4/25/2014
Status: offline
How about improving the map designing part for scenario designers. What I mean is expanding the editor so that it allows importing e.g. .jpg/bmp files. Then this could be worked at. For example, the editor could allow superimposing a transparent hexgrid on the map, allowing the designer to easily draw the map, using the TOAW terrain palette, and the like...

In fact, there was an old program which did similar things, like importing, setting the scale, etc, then drawing the map, or rather two programs. One was rather simple written in PASCAL, if I remember correctly, and it allowed calculating the coordinates of the centres of hexes within a given area. The other one was more like a Win application, and it allowed file importing, scale setting, hex size selecting, and so on. But these programs are old and probably not always work on modern systems, and probably are rather inaccessible but for the chosen few, and probably no one really is aware of their existence but the toughest and oldest grognards here...

Why not improving and facilitating map drawing somehow...? Make it more accessible for the masses.

< Message edited by Freyr Oakenshield -- 7/21/2015 2:16:36 PM >

(in reply to LOK32MK)
Post #: 56
RE: Wish List - 7/21/2015 6:26:47 PM   
josant

 

Posts: 534
Joined: 3/14/2007
From: Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfish6

More than two sides per scenario. I like what Command does and you add pretty much as many sides as you need (Red, Blue, Green, neutral, whatever) and set their 'attitude' to each other (enemy, unfriendly, neutral, allied, etc.). Bonus for events allowing side-specific attitude changes.



+1, this would be wonderfull.

(in reply to hellfish6)
Post #: 57
RE: Wish List - 7/21/2015 6:33:10 PM   
Freyr Oakenshield


Posts: 528
Joined: 4/25/2014
Status: offline
quote:

Those are all tactical games where being "in" a stream/gully hex actually has significance to LOS and defense. Operational or strategic games do not use in-hex watercourses.


True.

PS
though I have a strange feeling that somebody will come up with a counterexample in no time

(in reply to Capitaine)
Post #: 58
RE: Wish List - 7/21/2015 7:39:11 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 13060
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
River hexes could be made better for a little effort. River hexsides seem too expensive for a dubious benefit. I just don't see the case for them. For that amount of effort we could get better stuff.


I think the linked thread from 2007 lays out the case for them, I won't repeat it here.


It also laid out the case against them. I gather I will have to repeat it here.

quote:

And the amount of effort? It sounds like a patch was coded years ago...


What that consisted of and what became of it, no one knows.

For sure, this will be an expensive change. It requires unique graphics that no other tile has (hexside display). It requires that bridge blowing, bridge attacks, bridge repair, ferry support, and riverine movement will all have to be devised for hexside implementation. Each of those implementations will have to have UI mechanisms devised for them.

And what do we get for that? For all existing scenarios, nothing. Even for that small fraction of existing scenarios that can expect future designer revision, the answer is still probably nothing. What designers will rip out the river hexes from their maps to replace them with hexside rivers? Few if any. Only a fraction of brand new scenarios will even employ hexside rivers. What benefits will they enjoy from them? A x0.7 attack multiplier will be applied in a slightly different place. Whether that is an improvement or not is dubious.

What do we lose for switching to hexside rivers? The transverse benefits of rivers. Rivers meander and have oxbow lakes (see attached). That gives them a transverse benefit just like an entrenchment does by zig-zagging. River hexes have those benefits. Hexside rivers don’t. Rivers really can be thought of as occupying an area. An enemy unit can be on the same side of the river as its friendly target and yet still have a wide meander between them.

quote:

Any "fix" does not account for the basic fact that a unit is generally on one side of the river or the other, while this is not true of a unit in a (potentially 50 km wide) river hex.


That isn’t a “basic fact” but a basic fallacy. Contested front lines do not, in general, follow river boundaries . Bridgeheads do not start out 2.5 km long, much less 50km. In the real world, operational sized units will be on one side of the river in some places while being on the other side in others.

quote:

It might be helpful if you could explain how to properly defend a bridge with in-hex rivers, because right now I don't get it; to defend a bridge I'm supposed to occupy the river hex (with no defensive bonus for the river), which makes the unit stick out of the defending line, without any benefits from the river, rendering the defender very vulnerable. If the defender doesn't occupy the bridge hex, the attacker can just waltz in and take it. Doesn't make any sense to me…


Most scenarios expect the player to defend every hex tooth-and-nail. The front line will gradually advance to the river, onto the river, and beyond the river. In that process, the 0.7 multiplier will be received at some point (exactly the same for river hexes as for hexside rivers). Generally, even if there is the margin to abandon a defense line (suffering disengagement in the process) to fall back to anything, other terrain will be superior to any river line and will trump such considerations.

Nevertheless, if the changes in the Wishlist item 3.2 are made, then defenders could receive the river benefit while ON the river hex, not behind it. That change would impact all existing scenarios, by the way.

Coding time is precious. Graphic Designer time is expensive. We have to be judicious in our employment of them. Changes must make cost/benefit sense.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 7/21/2015 8:40:41 PM >


_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 59
RE: Wish List - 7/21/2015 8:02:34 PM   
Freyr Oakenshield


Posts: 528
Joined: 4/25/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
River hexes could be made better for a little effort. River hexsides seem too expensive for a dubious benefit. I just don't see the case for them. For that amount of effort we could get better stuff.


I think the linked thread from 2007 lays out the case for them, I won't repeat it here.


It also laid out the case against them. I gather I will have to repeat it here.

quote:

And the amount of effort? It sounds like a patch was coded years ago...


What that consisted of and what became of it, no one knows.

For sure, this will be an expensive change. It requires unique graphics that no other tile has (hexside display). It requires that bridge blowing, bridge attacks, bridge repair, ferry support, and riverine movement will all have to be devised for hexside implementation. Each of those implementations will have to have UI mechanisms devised for them.

And what do we get for that? For all existing scenarios, nothing. Even for that small fraction of existing scenarios that can expect future designer revision, the answer is still probably nothing. What designers will rip out the river hexes from their maps to replace them with hexside rivers? Few if any. Only a fraction of brand new scenarios will even employ hexside rivers. What benefits will they enjoy from them? A x0.7 attack multiplier will be applied in a slightly different place. Whether that is an improvement or not is dubious.

What do we lose for switching to hexside rivers? The transverse benefits of rivers. Rivers meander and have oxbow lakes (see attached). That gives them a transverse benefit just like an entrenchment does by zig-zagging. River hexes have those benefits. Hexside rivers don’t. Rivers really can be thought of as occupying an area. An enemy unit can be on the same side of the river as its friendly target and yet still have a wide meander between them.

quote:

Any "fix" does not account for the basic fact that a unit is generally on one side of the river or the other, while this is not true of a unit in a (potentially 50 km wide) river hex.


That isn’t a “basic fact” but a basic fallacy. Contested front lines do not, in general, follow river boundaries . Bridgeheads do not start out 2.5 km long, much less 50km. In the real world, operational sized units will be on one side of the river in some places while being on the other side in others.

quote:

It might be helpful if you could explain how to properly defend a bridge with in-hex rivers, because right now I don't get it; to defend a bridge I'm supposed to occupy the river hex (with no defensive bonus for the river), which makes the unit stick out of the defending line, without any benefits from the river, rendering the defender very vulnerable. If the defender doesn't occupy the bridge hex, the attacker can just waltz in and take it. Doesn't make any sense to me…


Most scenarios expect the player to defend every hex tooth-and-nail. The front line will gradually advance to the river, onto the river, and beyond the river. In that process, the 0.7 multiplier will be received at some point (exactly the same for river hexes as for hexside rivers). Generally, even if there is the margin to abandon a defense line (suffering disengagement in the process) to fall back to anything, other terrain will be superior to any river line and will trump such considerations.

Nevertheless, if the changes in the Wishlist item 3.2 are made, then defenders could receive the river benefit while ON the river hex, not behind it. That change would impact all existing scenarios, by the way.

Coding time is precious. Graphic Designer time is expensive. We have to be judicious in our employment of them. Changes must make cost/benefit sense.





That convinces me. Let's move on...

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> RE: Wish List Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.266