Question: Terrain details

[Cross]

Originally Posted by Imp

Its pretty straightforward really just relate it to real life, so houses are good & roads are bad.

I thought units on roads get the cover of the underlying terrain?

Imp is an experienced player, so this is a good example of why a defensive cover guide would be useful.

Not so that players can become 'rivet counters' - which I agree is annoying - but in order to play intuitively players should have at least general information. And I understand that the game designers are unable to provide that.

I did put together a defensive cover guide in the past, but I think it generated more questions than answers. The only way to answer those questions is testing.


Cross

[Cross]

Here's my most recent assessment, which is really just a 'starting point':



Let me know what you think is wrong.

Cross

[Imp]

Looks good enough to me though on the battlefield considering the ebb & flow of it I just keep it simple. Try to take advantage of the first 3 rows & avoid the last row if possible.
You can get silly complex & rate each terrain for its protection & detection properties, effectiveness vs artillery etc but you would spend ages figuring out what is the absolute optimum for that situation & what you need to achieve. Wisp of smoke there now improves those hexes detection rate etc etc.

[Cross]

Originally Posted by Imp

You can get silly complex & rate each terrain for its protection & detection properties, effectiveness vs artillery etc but you would spend ages figuring out what is the absolute optimum for that situation & what you need to achieve.

Hey John,

There is a long tradition in tabletop and hex board wargaming of publishing defensive tables with actual numeric values. I don't think that's needed in SP.

But at the other end of the scale is not having any idea if certain terrain types offer cover.

I'm the middle camp, where I don't want numeric values, but I would like more information than we have, so I'm not guessing.


Cross

[DRG]

Volcanic sand has only nominal height and zero density and therefore would be just barely better than beach sand as cover. It would therefore not qualify as "good cover".......at best "poor"


Don

[Imp]

Hey John,

There is a long tradition in tabletop and hex board wargaming of publishing defensive tables with actual numeric values. I don't think that's needed in SP.

But at the other end of the scale is not having any idea if certain terrain types offer cover.

I'm the middle camp, where I don't want numeric values, but I would like more information than we have, so I'm not guessing.

Hi Simon

Yes I used to play hex war game a lot & definitive defence factors etc were clearly defined as was in general the terrain.
Hex games tend to be simple with LOS you can either see through it or you cant & detection rates don't vary. Also all the hexes are identical, I have no idea nor do I really need to if a density 35 woods hex offers marginally better properties than a density 26 one. I would guess yes at least on detection.
You are talking percentages though not scaled jumps.

Same with the different terrains the diffrences are often faily subtle not a leap from zero to +1
Rough or an entrenchment are obviously a big change from open ground but a field is not.

Given the nature of the game I rarely find myself wondering about the fine nuances in the different terrain. The tactical situation move points & LOS more drive things & you try to take advantage of the best you can.

Roads & rail could I suppose be clarified they probably are based on underlying terrain & its just the extra speed on roads that makes them seem worse.

I also & just me think orchards are worse than woods at least for detection & would say sand dunes are not on par with woods either.

The rest seem fairly obvious & I understand where your coming from especially if your just starting the game so have no gut feeling on how it works.
You have to be careful though its easy for a new person to try & ring the last 0.1% out of a unit by studying all the little things rather than getting on with playing the game & developing tactics.
I should know I am a bean cruncher at heart yet for some reason have never found the need to take this game apart.

Defining things is hard though take elevation AFVs for some vehicles I would rate it as poor for others excellent. All depends how much better or worse your turret armour is than your hull armour. No good being a bit harder to hit if the shot now kills if it hits.
Of course that's not strictly true either theres still some benefit to it in the right situation.

[gila]

Originally Posted by Cross

I thought units on roads get the cover of the underlying terrain?



I did put together a defensive cover guide in the past, but I think it generated more questions than answers. The only way to answer those questions is testing.


Cross

Well,I've heard being on roads and when fired on,you should get the the underlay terrian effect as grunts should dive for cover.
Not so sure with the AFV's however,pretty sure they don't get any help with cover when on roads as they brew up easily.