Recommend
5 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! – Russia 1941-42» Forums » General

Subject: No-Go Terrain rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Robert Leonhard
United States
West Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Just got AtB 2nd Edition and the Solo Expansion. Loving the game! Beautiful components, well thought-out design, fun to play.

One small complaint I have with all small-unit tactical games, including this one. I was a career infantry officer in the Army and spent most of my time in mechanized infantry outfits. I worked with tanks--both M60 series and M1 series for many years in Germany and US posts. Tactical wargames routinely over-estimate a tank's ability to traverse rough terrain. For example, in this game, tanks are permitted to enter heavy woods, ascend steep slopes, etc.

In reality, MOST terrain is no-go for tanks. Most German forests are impossible for tanks, except, of course, where there are roads. Tanks moving into heavy woods would have to knock down trees and then drive over stumps and logs--perfect for throwing a track and getting immobilized. (Of course, in peace-time, we tend to avoid destroying host nation forests anyway.) In mechanized-tank task forces, we spend a lot of energy and time reconnoitering ahead of moves, and tank limitations are always on our minds. Tanks have trouble crossing bridges (more of a problem today than in WWII admittedly); they can get caught up and throw a track crossing rail lines; any terrain that has obstacles protruding from the ground can imperil a tank, etc.

I believe designers should more carefully consider "no-go" terrain for tanks and mechanized vehicles in general. Not only would it be more realistic, but it would also add tactical flavor to the game. One of the first things a combat arms officer does when considering a mission is to determine avenues of approach (along with obstacles). Typically for mechanized forces, these avenues go around rough and forested terrain. There are, of course, exceptions--some woods are light enough or have trails, etc. But most woods remain no-go for tanks.

Anyway--I'm loving the game despite this point. It's fast becoming my number one solo game.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Timothy Boulan
United States
Corpus Christi
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I was looking for background images for an Android game I was working on - your post reminded me of this one I saw.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Berg Asklev Hansen
Denmark
Vejle
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have always wondered why they added extra complexity to COH by allowing vehicle movement in woods and buildings instead of just prohibiting it.
It would be more historically correct and FAR simpler in terms of movement costs to remember.
On this count Band of Brothers is superior (although I prefer the gameplay of CoH)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lewis Karl
United States
Vienna
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hex is about 40-50 meters scale or 1/2 acre. Its pretty clear the tanks are not moving into buildings but around. I see no problem with this provided the extra movement penalty. Immobilization possibility with stone buildings as well.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Cavallari
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I enjoy the CoH games as well, but I've always questioned the designers' decision to omit wrecked vehicle markers from the game. I suppose if one considers the area one hex covers it might not matter if a wrecked vehicle counter was present or not. Still, if the system were to be brought elsewhere, say The Ardennes, wouldn't wrecks become more of a strategic issue? Just wondering.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Torrens
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I believe this is what you are looking for.

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgameexpansion/132026/conf...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Torrens
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I was always under the impression in these types of wargames that the terrain in each hex does not cover every inch of the hex, just a majority (ie. over 50%). So a tank moving through a light woods hex may just be skirting the actual wooded area.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Leonhard
United States
West Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Good comments all. And I LOVE the picture! Would hate to have to explain THAT to the boss. "I dunno, sir. I thought I could make it."

Your point about the hexes not including all the terrain depicted is fair. But I just remember so much of my defense planning as an infantry commander and later as a divisional chief of plans being conditioned by no-go terrain. At the National Training Center (Fort Irwin) and at Fort Polk (my first assignment as a platoon leader), the no-go terrain is obvious and pervasive. By using the no-go terrain to shape the enemy's advance, we can set up effective flank shots and anti-armor ambushes and such.

No big deal, really. And it certainly doesn't spoil the game for me. Just an observation.

Just finished my first solo play of the partisans scenario. I walloped the Germans good. Hopefully I played it correctly. The one thing I don't like about solo games is that there is no one there to call foul if I flub a rule.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Torrens
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Robert Leonhard wrote:
Good comments all. And I LOVE the picture! Would hate to have to explain THAT to the boss. "I dunno, sir. I thought I could make it."

Your point about the hexes not including all the terrain depicted is fair. But I just remember so much of my defense planning as an infantry commander and later as a divisional chief of plans being conditioned by no-go terrain. At the National Training Center (Fort Irwin) and at Fort Polk (my first assignment as a platoon leader), the no-go terrain is obvious and pervasive. By using the no-go terrain to shape the enemy's advance, we can set up effective flank shots and anti-armor ambushes and such.

No big deal, really. And it certainly doesn't spoil the game for me. Just an observation.

Just finished my first solo play of the partisans scenario. I walloped the Germans good. Hopefully I played it correctly. The one thing I don't like about solo games is that there is no one there to call foul if I flub a rule.


Thankfully there is a fantastic community to discuss rules questions when they pop up. Some players even take a photo of the game state and action card in question when making a query.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Torrens
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tboulan wrote:
I was looking for background images for an Android game I was working on - your post reminded me of this one I saw.



"It was like that when I got here!"

Or

"When that scout plane swings around he is going to be in for one heck of a surprise!"
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Confusion Under Fire
United Kingdom
Warrington
Cheshire
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Brian T wrote:
tboulan wrote:
I was looking for background images for an Android game I was working on - your post reminded me of this one I saw.



"It was like that when I got here!"

Or

"When that scout plane swings around he is going to be in for one heck of a surprise!"



"I am having trouble deciding which hex side I should be facing"!

OR

"All I need is to roll =>8 and we will be fine"
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Confusion Under Fire
United Kingdom
Warrington
Cheshire
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Robert Leonhard wrote:
Just got AtB 2nd Edition and the Solo Expansion. Loving the game! Beautiful components, well thought-out design, fun to play.

One small complaint I have with all small-unit tactical games, including this one. I was a career infantry officer in the Army and spent most of my time in mechanized infantry outfits. I worked with tanks--both M60 series and M1 series for many years in Germany and US posts. Tactical wargames routinely over-estimate a tank's ability to traverse rough terrain. For example, in this game, tanks are permitted to enter heavy woods, ascend steep slopes, etc.

In reality, MOST terrain is no-go for tanks. Most German forests are impossible for tanks, except, of course, where there are roads. Tanks moving into heavy woods would have to knock down trees and then drive over stumps and logs--perfect for throwing a track and getting immobilized. (Of course, in peace-time, we tend to avoid destroying host nation forests anyway.) In mechanized-tank task forces, we spend a lot of energy and time reconnoitering ahead of moves, and tank limitations are always on our minds. Tanks have trouble crossing bridges (more of a problem today than in WWII admittedly); they can get caught up and throw a track crossing rail lines; any terrain that has obstacles protruding from the ground can imperil a tank, etc.

I believe designers should more carefully consider "no-go" terrain for tanks and mechanized vehicles in general. Not only would it be more realistic, but it would also add tactical flavor to the game. One of the first things a combat arms officer does when considering a mission is to determine avenues of approach (along with obstacles). Typically for mechanized forces, these avenues go around rough and forested terrain. There are, of course, exceptions--some woods are light enough or have trails, etc. But most woods remain no-go for tanks.

Anyway--I'm loving the game despite this point. It's fast becoming my number one solo game.


The solo system uses a different AP expenditure system where the number of APs used on an action is compared to a figure at the bottom of one of the cards. If the AP is equal or higher than this figure then the unit is used for this turn. This means a unit is unsure as to when it will become used. This system has been adapted to be played with the 2 player game by the use of chits which can be found in the files section.
https://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/130410/unit-spent-che...

In relation to your question it makes the player think about moving through high cost terrain. You would have a better chance of making three moves at a cost of 1AP per move than making one move of 3APs. It wont stop players from being able to move AFVs through buildings but it can make it the worse of the two options even if it costs less in APs in total.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Leonhard
United States
West Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
This is a great point! Thank you! I like the concept.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.