- Oct 31, 2003
- Reaction score
- Melbourne, Australia
- First name
The point is that as it is 2-hex wide it's no fucking use as a canal, which was where this discussion started: "there are no canal overlays". You were the one who brought it up as being useful as a stream -- it isn't.Yes, it is a River - not a Stream. My point isn't whether it's one or the other - the point is that such exists and can represent a 'waterway' of 2 hex width.
The instances of "opposed river crossings" during WW2 are few, and most of those have probably also had scenario treatment. You can add other situations where a river was present but wasn't being crossed and that will bump up the numbers a little. That being true, I don't think we really need more river boards, but can always be convinced otherwise by a suitably smart design. I didn't think we needed the Rv1 overlay.The frequency of usage so far in published scenarios with Rivers/Canals/Streams is relatively little to my count*.
Streams seem fine as is to me ... there seems to be a good number of possibilities with the existing boards and overlays, and even more if you flood a gully. Again, more "stream boards" are probably not really required, but there are plenty of other board types where a stream could be added in a useful fashion.
Why aren't we seeing more canal scenarios? Could it have anything to do with the ridiculously few options for depicting them? Do you think that might be a factor? (I'm not suggesting that it's the only reason.) A bunch of simple canal overlays would cost relatively little and expand the available options -- which was the only point I was making before being accused of trying to stop new boards from being designed.
Sure. I never suggested otherwise? What are you talking about? What does that have to do with canals?I talk with and have talked with lots of designers - the main guys who work on these. Ask them yourself whether new boards encourage design.