Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
6 Posts

The War: Europe 1939-1945» Forums » Rules

Subject: Terrain Modifiers rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Darrell Hanning
United States
Jacksonville
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
We will meet at the Hour of Scampering.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mr. Copley, under 10.6.14, the rules state that terrain effects are generally cumulative.

However, in the example following that, it states that a 6-5 INF in a forest hex with a fortification would be worth 19. But I figure if the effects are cumulative, then the INF would actually be worth 37 - 6 doubled for forest, and then tripled For fortification(12*3 = 36), and then one added. (Or maybe even 39 - (((6*2) +1) * 3).

If it is in fact only worth 19, then aren't you ignoring the doubling of the forest, and applying only the tripling of the fortification ( while still adding the 1 from the forest, which only makes the computation more puzzling)?

I stumbled across this when looking at a 4-5 defending Warsaw from attacks all coming across the rivers. Looks like my choices for defense total are 12 (as the bonus of +2 is only listed on the TEC for non-objective cities), 14 (if I include the bonus), 18 (if tripled for the river only), 20 ( if I follow the logic of the example in the rules), or 26 or 30, if I add the bonus before or after tripling, after having doubled for the city.

So, which one is it? And maybe you could clarify what the actual process is, when multiple multipliers are in play?

Thanks!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ernie Copley
United States
Cumberland Center
Maine
flag msg tools
designer
DarrellKH wrote:
Mr. Copley, under 10.6.14, the rules state that terrain effects are generally cumulative.

However, in the example following that, it states that a 6-5 INF in a forest hex with a fortification would be worth 19. But I figure if the effects are cumulative, then the INF would actually be worth 37 - 6 doubled for forest, and then tripled For fortification(12*3 = 36), and then one added. (Or maybe even 39 - (((6*2) +1) * 3).

If it is in fact only worth 19, then aren't you ignoring the doubling of the forest, and applying only the tripling of the fortification ( while still adding the 1 from the forest, which only makes the computation more puzzling)?

I stumbled across this when looking at a 4-5 defending Warsaw from attacks all coming across the rivers. Looks like my choices for defense total are 12 (as the bonus of +2 is only listed on the TEC for non-objective cities), 14 (if I include the bonus), 18 (if tripled for the river only), 20 ( if I follow the logic of the example in the rules), or 26 or 30, if I add the bonus before or after tripling, after having doubled for the city.

So, which one is it? And maybe you could clarify what the actual process is, when multiple multipliers are in play?

Thanks!


Hello, Darrell - in order:

1) I'm not sure about your math - in 10.6.3, it states clearly that any doubling (the normal situation on defense) occurs before the +1 benefit for forest; the same principle applies with fortifications; you triple the unit, then add the forest bonus;

2) nothing puzzling about it, from a historical perspective. In 1941, the Germans took heavily forested Belorussia in a few weeks. Forest are a defensive benefit, but not a large one;

3) your example isn't ambiguous if you review the section on cities, 10.6.8. The city bonus is added to Warsaw after any doubling or tripling due to terrain. So a 6-5 INF in Warsaw is tripled if attacked just across river, +1 for the city. National capitals have a flak factor of 2, not a city bonus of 2, as per 11.12.1. In all cases, if a conflict exists, the rules trump the TEC.

The rule of thumb is double or tripled first, then add city bonus,

ernie
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darrell Hanning
United States
Jacksonville
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
We will meet at the Hour of Scampering.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
e_copley wrote:
DarrellKH wrote:
Mr. Copley, under 10.6.14, the rules state that terrain effects are generally cumulative.

However, in the example following that, it states that a 6-5 INF in a forest hex with a fortification would be worth 19. But I figure if the effects are cumulative, then the INF would actually be worth 37 - 6 doubled for forest, and then tripled For fortification(12*3 = 36), and then one added. (Or maybe even 39 - (((6*2) +1) * 3).

If it is in fact only worth 19, then aren't you ignoring the doubling of the forest, and applying only the tripling of the fortification ( while still adding the 1 from the forest, which only makes the computation more puzzling)?

I stumbled across this when looking at a 4-5 defending Warsaw from attacks all coming across the rivers. Looks like my choices for defense total are 12 (as the bonus of +2 is only listed on the TEC for non-objective cities), 14 (if I include the bonus), 18 (if tripled for the river only), 20 ( if I follow the logic of the example in the rules), or 26 or 30, if I add the bonus before or after tripling, after having doubled for the city.

So, which one is it? And maybe you could clarify what the actual process is, when multiple multipliers are in play?

Thanks!


Hello, Darrell - in order:

1) I'm not sure about your math - in 10.6.3, it states clearly that any doubling (the normal situation on defense) occurs before the +1 benefit for forest; the same principle applies with fortifications; you triple the unit, then add the forest bonus;


So, in other words, you use only the larger multiplier, when more than one is available for a given hex? If so, that isn't what I call "cumulative", which is where my confusion was. "Cumulative", to me, is when both multipliers apply, which is the case in some wargames.

e_copley wrote:

2) nothing puzzling about it, from a historical perspective. In 1941, the Germans took heavily forested Belorussia in a few weeks. Forest are a defensive benefit, but not a large one;


I wasn't taking exception to what modifiers were attributed to forest, but to the allusion that all modifiers apply, when multiple terrain modifiers are present, which it seems they do not.

e_copley wrote:

The rule of thumb is double or tripled first, then add city bonus,

ernie


This answers my question - rather than the modifiers being cumulative, they are either/or. In the case of having both a doubling and tripling available, you apparently take only the tripling. Thanks for clearing that up.

I may have missed it somewhere, but usually one finds, under terrain effects, some statement to the effect that "when multiple modifiers apply to single location, do not use all modifiers, but only the modifier more advantageous to the defender". In the case of this game, you could also add some type of statement to the same effect, for the bonuses expressed in terms of defense factors added to a unit (such as the +1). In other words, you do not get both the doubling for city and the tripling for the river, but only the tripling for the river.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ernie Copley
United States
Cumberland Center
Maine
flag msg tools
designer
DarrellKH wrote:
e_copley wrote:
DarrellKH wrote:
Mr. Copley, under 10.6.14, the rules state that terrain effects are generally cumulative.

However, in the example following that, it states that a 6-5 INF in a forest hex with a fortification would be worth 19. But I figure if the effects are cumulative, then the INF would actually be worth 37 - 6 doubled for forest, and then tripled For fortification(12*3 = 36), and then one added. (Or maybe even 39 - (((6*2) +1) * 3).

If it is in fact only worth 19, then aren't you ignoring the doubling of the forest, and applying only the tripling of the fortification ( while still adding the 1 from the forest, which only makes the computation more puzzling)?

I stumbled across this when looking at a 4-5 defending Warsaw from attacks all coming across the rivers. Looks like my choices for defense total are 12 (as the bonus of +2 is only listed on the TEC for non-objective cities), 14 (if I include the bonus), 18 (if tripled for the river only), 20 ( if I follow the logic of the example in the rules), or 26 or 30, if I add the bonus before or after tripling, after having doubled for the city.

So, which one is it? And maybe you could clarify what the actual process is, when multiple multipliers are in play?

Thanks!


Hello, Darrell - in order:

1) I'm not sure about your math - in 10.6.3, it states clearly that any doubling (the normal situation on defense) occurs before the +1 benefit for forest; the same principle applies with fortifications; you triple the unit, then add the forest bonus;


So, in other words, you use only the larger multiplier, when more than one is available for a given hex? If so, that isn't what I call "cumulative", which is where my confusion was. "Cumulative", to me, is when both multipliers apply, which is the case in some wargames.

e_copley wrote:

2) nothing puzzling about it, from a historical perspective. In 1941, the Germans took heavily forested Belorussia in a few weeks. Forest are a defensive benefit, but not a large one;


I wasn't taking exception to what modifiers were attributed to forest, but to the allusion that all modifiers apply, when multiple terrain modifiers are present, which it seems they do not.

e_copley wrote:

The rule of thumb is double or tripled first, then add city bonus,

ernie


This answers my question - rather than the modifiers being cumulative, they are either/or. In the case of having both a doubling and tripling available, you apparently take only the tripling. Thanks for clearing that up.

I may have missed it somewhere, but usually one finds, under terrain effects, some statement to the effect that "when multiple modifiers apply to single location, do not use all modifiers, but only the modifier more advantageous to the defender". In the case of this game, you could also add some type of statement to the same effect, for the bonuses expressed in terms of defense factors added to a unit (such as the +1). In other words, you do not get both the doubling for city and the tripling for the river, but only the tripling for the river.



Hi Darrell - okay, in order:

1) yes, that's correct - you take the larger multiplier;

2) again, that's correct;

3) okay, glad to clear it up;

4) correct, and point taken - I may have to mull over the exact wording, but maybe it would be useful to add a clarification summarizing your last paragraph to the TW errata sheet.

ernie
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Gallo
United States
O'Fallon
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
For what this is worth, If I had read the rule and not read the example, I would argue to anyone that the result would have been 37 (N*2*3+1). I would only have accepted an answer of 31 if "cumulative" had been argued as: *(2+3) and then only begrudgingly.

Cumulative has meant that all such modifications are included for a long time in wargame rules such that it is typically specified as "not cumulative" when only one modifier is used.

I vote for a clarification and a rewording in all future editions of the rules, assuming this is a democracy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ernie Copley
United States
Cumberland Center
Maine
flag msg tools
designer
martimer wrote:
For what this is worth, If I had read the rule and not read the example, I would argue to anyone that the result would have been 37 (N*2*3+1). I would only have accepted an answer of 31 if "cumulative" had been argued as: *(2+3) and then only begrudgingly.

Cumulative has meant that all such modifications are included for a long time in wargame rules such that it is typically specified as "not cumulative" when only one modifier is used.

I vote for a clarification and a rewording in all future editions of the rules, assuming this is a democracy.


Hi Martin - okay - so noted - I have added a clarification on the points made above to the current version of the errata sheet. Will post after gathering a few more items,

ernie
 
 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.