Terrain Values

[pzgndr]

A few comments and ideas based on gameplay and reviewing the manual:

1. Marsh and Forest should be similar enough that Marsh should also have ADB 1 and NDB 1.

2. Marsh and River hexes should permit some entrenchment, at least similar to Clear and Forest, so should also have ME 2. These 50-mile hexes are not totally marshes and rivers.

3. I recall Hubert saying attacker is halved when attacking from River hexes, but this is not defined anywhere in the manual or discussed in the combat formulas. Whenever the manual gets updated, this should addressed.

4. Could a minimum entrenchment value be considered for some terrain? Suggest Mountain and City have ME 1, Capital ME 2, and Fortification ME 3 as minimum values. There should be some inherent defensive bonuses for simply being in these hexes without having to wait several turns to entrench.

Some or all of these changes could help improve the game without adversely affecting anything. Any yeas or nays from the peanut gallery?

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Bill Macon:

Any yeas or nays from the peanut gallery?

Yay! Yay! Hooooor-ray!

The Peanut Man at Wrigley Field, Chicago USA is Twirling out them behind-the-back goober bags,

As we speak!

The ball-players are going to stoop to play,

That piddly 2.4 mill average salary -- didn't

Get in their ever-lovin' way! O say,

Yay! Yay! Hooooor-ray!

(... now Hubert can get back in on the Toronto Blue Jay negotiations, and make of this team... a Terrific Turquoise Fury!... :cool: .... yay.)

[Wolfe]

I'd prefer it that the marsh hexes be as unpallatable as possible. They're supposed to be a major obstacle, I believe, so I'd rather their values not change, especially when I'm playing the Allies.

Inherent (minimum) defensive values for mountains and cities is a very good idea, though. As is having some defensive value for river hexes.

- Chris

[Hubert Cater]

1. Marsh and Forest should be similar enough that Marsh should also have ADB 1 and NDB 1.

2. Marsh and River hexes should permit some entrenchment, at least similar to Clear and Forest, so should also have ME 2. These 50-mile hexes are not totally marshes and rivers.

These two I would leave as is, I always liked the idea of being slightly penalized if caught in marsh , same for not allowing entrenchment. One of the main reasons is the current design, better to be behind the river or marsh hex and the attacker's attack is cut in half.

3. I recall Hubert saying attacker is halved when attacking from River hexes, but this is not defined anywhere in the manual or discussed in the combat formulas. Whenever the manual gets updated, this should addressed.

Yeah this was missed.

4. Could a minimum entrenchment value be considered for some terrain? Suggest Mountain and City have ME 1, Capital ME 2, and Fortification ME 3 as minimum values. There should be some inherent defensive bonuses for simply being in these hexes without having to wait several turns to entrench.

I am not 100% sure what you are asking for here, but if I understand correctly, this is already in place, i.e. any type of terrain allows for a 2-fold bonus, the immediate bonuses of the terrain against certain types of attack like 'soft' 'tank' 'air' etc., and then the entrenchment value allotted for the longer you stay there immobilized. If you check the combat formula you'll see how this works out the same for defender losses where the entrenchment and defence bonuses are added together in the same part of the formula.

Hubert

[pzgndr]

I see now how entrenchment level and terrain defense bonus is accounted for in defender losses. I'm not fully understanding why we need both. I can see entrenchment representing improvement of a position, but that should max out in a couple of turns. A unit doesn't exactly build more fortification or more city in those hexes. And if a unit leaves and another steps in, the fixed improvements should remain. So I guess I'm leaning toward higher terrain defense bonuses in lieu of higher ME values, where ME should be a standard 2 for most terrain and maybe 3 or 4 for cities and forts.

I'll leave marshes alone but question why units should be penalized for being on a river hex, ie not able to entrench like on clear terrain. Yes, you get a defense benefit for being behind a river, but these are 50-mile hexes we're talking about. And with some of the rivers meandering on the map, some of these become 100-mile wide area obstacles at places rather than linear barriers. Perhaps rivers on hexsides rather than rivers in hexes could be considered for some future version? For now, I'm only suggesting river hexes should be treated as clear terrain with ME 2, and keep attackers in river hexes halved as is.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[Hubert Cater]

I see now how entrenchment level and terrain defense bonus is accounted for in defender losses. I'm not fully understanding why we need both.

Well one is for the terrain itself, and the second is for what the unit does while on that terrain.

I can see entrenchment representing improvement of a position, but that should max out in a couple of turns.

It already does.

A unit doesn't exactly build more fortification or more city in those hexes. And if a unit leaves and another steps in, the fixed improvements should remain.

This would be the case for fortifications, consider entrenchments as just a unit improving it's position by proper dispertion of it's units throughout the terrain and networking of it's defence capabilities, i.e. ideal artillery, anti-aircraft guns, gun positions, anti-tank positions etc.

Perhaps rivers on hexsides rather than rivers in hexes could be considered for some future version?

This will be part of the improvements for a future version as it does make more sense as you've suggested.

Hubert