Matrix Games Forums

Just had a thought that might be worth including in future releases. It may be brilliant or not (probably not) and it may have already been thought of, suggested, discussed and dropped, but bear with me.

Minor roads:

Allow engineer units to temporarily create a minor road.

1. The type of engineer unit and the number of engineer points required would be specified by the type of terrain. Multiple eng. units stacked together could achieve that specified level.

2. Units having sufficient eng. pts. would project a minor road into the hex they occupy and each of the six adjacent hexes. Thus by stringing engineer units every third hex you could create a minor road. The road would cease to exist if the unit left, was withdrawn or suffered sufficient casualties to lower its eng. pts. below those specified. Perhaps the fatigue level of the eng. unit might affect the viability of the road. Constant bombing could be effective in slowing enemy units down on such a road.

3. The specified eng. pt. level would be determined by the worst terrain in any one of the seven hexes.


Major roads: as above but except for;

1. The engineer unit only accomplishes a road in the hex it occupies. Therefore you would have to have engineers occupying every hex of your temporary major road.

2. The terrain requirements might be different than for minor roads, as in greater.

3. Strategic movement should not be allowed on temporary major roads.

I think it might be reasonable to decide to only use the minor road idea and drop the major road idea.

Railroads:

I think this would be a bad idea, but if it were to be done, here are some of the considerations involved;

1. Only specialized RR engineers would be able to do it. They would have to be researched and added to the game. There might be some provision for manpower in cities giving a bonus toward the construction in a radius from the city to be specified. Supplies would be consumed in the process and units with insufficient supply would not be able to do it.

2. The rail lines in the current artwork that go from a base and tail off without reaching another base should not be used. Your engineer string would have to stretch all the way from one base to another. I think the programming otherwise would be very difficult.

3. Garrison requirements in the game now would have to be met to accomplish creating the line. As before, the line would cease to exist if the engineering requirements are not met.

4. It would be cool if there were to be a provision for bombing damage, at least where the line crosses a river.

5. The terrain requirements and the length of line each RR engineer unit(s) project could and probably should be different than for minor and major roads.

Supply requirements and consumption or same probably should be in force for all three types of lines. I'm not aware of (in the case of railroads) any historical activity of this sort in the Pacific and Indian Ocean theaters, although there was damage inflicted and repairs made. Europe was a different matter, of course. Also, whether there should be a waiting period before the lines and perhaps a die roll based on leader values etc. as to timing should be considered.

Please discuss. I have only a vague idea of the programming difficulties involved. Of course, the value of these ideas to the game is debatable as well. You can just post a -1 if you don't like any of it. [:)]

edit: one more thing, enemy presence in a hex would obviate road movement even where the two hex sides involved were under friendly control.

Well articulated Geof, I like the idea and it certainly would add something to the game however I too have no idea how this would be accommodated by the computer code. I think the monsoon season should also have an impact. I've not been on the forum long enough to know if this has already been explored. Also I've no idea how the map could reflect these temporary roads. My understanding is that the map is a series of files that simply show the terrain (with roads, towns, cities, etc.) and that other features are superimposed upon it.

It was discussed no later then ten minutes after the game shipped. To do it you need on-the-fly pwhex file editing. Very hard to do without a new engine.

Like I know what the heck you just said. [:D] To Dr. Hal I don't think they should be portrayed on the map at all, you just have to know if you've met the requirements.

I think you are underestimating the effort in creating roads. A road that projected out to all 6 hexsides would represent 126 miles of road. That would mean (for a crushed rock roadway 22' wide, with a roadbed that averaged 6" thick) you would need 7.3 million cubic feet of material, or 384200 supplies. Per hex. Think how long it takes to build a lvl 3 airfield that is about 1/2m long. Then multiply that by 250 to get a rough estimate on the time it would take.

That's for a road that is too thin to last (a typical roadbed is closer to 24" deep) and too narrow for 2 way traffic (a modern two lane road is 28' wide).

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Like I know what the heck you just said. [:D] To Dr. Hal I don't think they should be portrayed on the map at all, you just have to know if you've met the requirements.

Thinking about it, I'm not sure I do either. I think the pwhex file is involved. But perhaps the issue was the graphics as well. The map is fixed art. Roads can't be drawn in. I think the map is multiple bitmaps assembled like a mosaic. The contents of each tile are pre-drawn in the bitmap, not rendered on the fly.

But I also think the pwhex file is involved if the movement and/or supply flow characteristics of the hex are changed.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

It was discussed no later then ten minutes after the game shipped. To do it you need on-the-fly pwhex file editing. Very hard to do without a new engine.

Well that puts "paid" to the idea! Bullwinkle58 I thought you were a moose not an elephant! Good memory.... But I do think it is a good idea! Hal

ORIGINAL: Amoral

I think you are underestimating the effort in creating roads. A road that projected out to all 6 hexsides would represent 126 miles of road. That would mean (for a crushed rock roadway 22' wide, with a roadbed that averaged 6" thick) you would need 7.3 million cubic feet of material, or 384200 supplies. Per hex.

That's for a road that is too thin to last (a typical roadbed is closer to 24" deep) and too narrow for 2 way traffic (a modern two lane road is 28' wide).

I agree. The time factor if applied could ameliorate that. Also, similar to rail movement from base to base, you should have to move from engineer to engineer, and no farther.

Bullwinkle, like I said, no map display of these lines.

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: Amoral

I think you are underestimating the effort in creating roads. A road that projected out to all 6 hexsides would represent 126 miles of road. That would mean (for a crushed rock roadway 22' wide, with a roadbed that averaged 6" thick) you would need 7.3 million cubic feet of material, or 384200 supplies. Per hex.

That's for a road that is too thin to last (a typical roadbed is closer to 24" deep) and too narrow for 2 way traffic (a modern two lane road is 28' wide).

I agree. The time factor if applied could ameliorate that. Also, similar to rail movement from base to base, you should have to move from engineer to engineer, and no farther.

Bullwinkle, like I said, no map display of these lines.

I re-read your proposal and it doesn't seem to reflect the real world. Why would a road disappear when the engineers did? Further, having new roads there, but not show? Can you imagine the howling?

Back at ship the devs discussed that there are local roads smaller than those shown on the map already inherent in the design and shown by supply flow characteristics. I believe they called them "local paths." You could search 2009 if you have the time.

Thanks, I'll try that. The idea is sort of maintenance will be required and for that you have to commit those engineers, so it has to be worth it.

Another fly in the ointment would be with the engineers at every third hex, what would the route me if the road curved?

Actually I think the building of front line swimming-pools, would have more of a beneficial impact on the game than building roads. [:'(]

Well stocked with babes?

If you're going to be allowed to build roads, then the Allies should be allowed to alter production like the Japanese...and maybe even construct ships as you see fit, that didn't exist..

However, you're beginning to dive into the realm of fantasy by doing the later.

The AE design team wanted to allow for roads and rail to be added over time, at least the most historically significant ones such as the Alaska-Canada highway, the Ledo Road, and the (Japanese) "Bridge over the River Kwai" railroad extension. (The rule book even mentions the Ledo road).

But the team ran into the game code problem that prohibits them from editing hexes during a game. After release, El Sid proposed an approach where both players would change their map files, together, once a game year or so, to reflect the new roads/RRs. I don't know how well that works.

And to Bullwinkle's comment, yes, every hex is considered to have "local paths" or trails. That's why we don't see the Kokoda trail displayed on the map. It's a local path/trail.

Your points are noted. But I'm not interested in a display component to this, unless it would show up when you hit the "W" hot key along with the hexside control status, which obviously can be edited. That display should be available to both the road builder and the opponent. Also as I said before, the railroads to nowhere should not be in consideration and we can consider them merely artwork (I do thank the artists who made the map though).

The developed and cultivated hexes obviously have fairly decent roads in them. The question seems to me to revolve around whether hex and hexside attributes can be stored and be subject to change, and the answer may be yes as the hexside control info is constantly changing.

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Your points are noted. But I'm not interested in a display component to this, unless it would show up when you hit the "W" hot key along with the hexside control status, which obviously can be edited. That display should be available to both the road builder and the opponent. Also as I said before, the railroads to nowhere should not be in consideration and we can consider them merely artwork (I do thank the artists who made the map though).

The developed and cultivated hexes obviously have fairly decent roads in them. The question seems to me to revolve around whether hex and hexside attributes can be stored and be subject to change, and the answer may be yes as the hexside control info is constantly changing.

I'm not sure in coding terms the hexside status is stored with the pwhex data. Every hex has pwhex data which doesn't change. Terrain type, etc. The hexside data is actually a fairly limited, dynamic, set of data. The vast majority of hexes on the map don't have hex ownership which changes; much of the map is water. It would be inefficient in coding terms to have to load and write to the pwhex file every time a hexside changed status. A variable array of some kind would be much faster and risk corruption of the pwhex data much less.

Anything COULD be done by good coders, but what you're suggesting is non-trivial mucking around in the basement of the game, not an overlay. Hundreds of routines depend on the pwhex data and its integrity. Hex road status is pwhex file data.

Maybe next time around.

You guys have given me a headache.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You guys have given me a headache.

Hey, man! Come join the 1990s! [:)]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You guys have given me a headache.

I'm +1 because of BW

I learned FORTRAN in high school and taught myself BASIC in the early '80s but I don't know how to do anything nowadays.[:(]