Rough terrain?



  • AA50 used more spaces to try to model the geography of Asia and Africa, but if AA42 is more like AAR in the number of spaces, in order to have a less bulky map, maybe terrain should be added to the game? “Rough terrain” could be shown with small mountains on the map, in Africa south of Egypt, China in territories without a coast and in Siberia and Persia. Maybe Burma, Norway, Balkans and the Rockies (Alaska, West Canada, Central US) as well. The effect would be simple: a tank must use both movement points to enter an area with rough terrain. Should have the same effects as adding spaces, and model the absence of roads and railways in many areas of the world during the war.


  • 2018 '16 '13 '12

    Sounds like a pretty cool idea to me. I never liked the ability to blitz from Alaska to east Canada, it seemed like a bit of a strech 🙂

    … of course there was the Alaska Highway…



  • No rough terrain should be more for tactical type games, A&A is a strategic game.  All you need to know is what terrain one can move through.


  • Customizer

    But strategy was heavily affected by terrain considerations. The defeat of Germany was achieved by twin thrusts across the flat plains of northern Europe, while Churchill’s “soft underbelly” strategy of attacking through mountainous Italy was much slower and more costly.
    Invading Norway should also be a more difficult proposition.
    Regarding effects, tanks shouldn’t have 2 movement points in any case, but they should only attack at 2 against mountains. Similarly, artillery’s bonus to infantry should apply in defence of mountains, but not when attacking them.
    We might consider applying infantry defence at 2 to DT only, and perhaps reducing the attack values of aircraft vs DT.



  • We really shouldn’t make terrain too complex in a game like this. But one effect I thought of would be to give artillery ‘3’ in defence in rough terrain, but the movement effect for tanks is what is important I think.

    PS. And Italy shouldn’t be rough, Balkans is enough and since it’s between Italy and Germany it is a nice simulation of the defence lines Germany was able to put up after the fall of Italy proper. DS.



  • Yah their shoud definetly be mountanous terrian

    based on the revised map, possible mountanous regions are the balkans, Norway, Alegria, Eithopia, Iran, the Urals, manchuria and the russia region that borders it, Japan, Central and western United States, both chinese territories, and maybe even India as well as a munch of the pacfic inlands.

    The rules should be that it prevents artillery to attack into it or at least removes their bonus to infatry, as wells severily limeting tanks attacking ability, maybe even not allowing tanks to attack at all.



  • Artillery not attacking into mountains?  :? If you look at the world war I battles in the Alps, artillery RULED both on defence and offense. I don’t think reducing unit attack values etc is fun, better boosting artillery which still is a tad weak for its cost.

    On a side, what territory changes from AAR to AA50 do we want to keep?
    Northwest Europe: more of a hassle, not worth it.
    Norway/Finland divide: great since it protects Karelia a bit.
    East front: great! KAR IC is just right and the division of land as well.
    Balkans/Czech/Bulgaria: too many!
    Siberia: great! Although on a smaller map introducing rough terrain will have the same effect.
    Africa: poor… Even more IPCs here but in real life not much of value could’ve been gotten from invading the Sudan or beyond. Give them zero value exc. for Egypt and SAF and move IPCs to other parts!
    Burma: great!
    China: too many territories, a stronger China or some terrain effects would have the same effects. I still can’t figure out how Hong-Kong is more important than Singapore!  :?
    Pacific: great! Japan not being able to invade Hawaii nor Solomons from home ports is great and a cat-and-mouse game often takes places around Solomons where the Yanks can slip through.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    If this was in the game id have no blitzing allowed and allow the land defenders to fire first, attackers allocate loses, then attackers fire.


  • 2018 '16 '13 '12

    I don’t expect we will see rough terrain appear in AA42 which is probably a good thing given the game’s complexity. Though I think that keeping some of the territory divisions of AA50 could help compensate for that: Fin/Norway or the Balkans are a good example, and Burma aswell.

    To respond to Lynxes:

    I agree, Europe was a little too chopped up un AA50
    the pacific was great but I would keep the AAR 2 zone Sea of Japan
    Liked south asia for the most part
    I would like to see at least some of the new territories for China stay. At least 3, maybe 4 chinese territories, and toss them a few more infantry, maybe 2 in each forward territory.



  • @Lynxes:

    PS. And Italy shouldn’t be rough, Balkans is enough and since it’s between Italy and Germany it is a nice simulation of the defence lines Germany was able to put up after the fall of Italy proper. DS.

    and france blocks it on the other side, but then you lose two territories.  better to chop italy into north/south to simulate the lines, as that’s where the lines were.



  • @Lynxes:

    Artillery not attacking into mountains?  :? If you look at the world war I battles in the Alps, artillery RULED both on defence and offense. I don’t think reducing unit attack values etc is fun, better boosting artillery which still is a tad weak for its cost.

    Axis and Allies is a game about World War II( in world war I artllery was the most devistating weapon no matter what front), and for artillery attacking into mountains the guns used have to be much smaller and is are less effective at supporting attacks, not to mention mountainous terrian allows defenders to hide and take cover much more effectivly.



  • @Flashman:

    But strategy was heavily affected by terrain considerations. The defeat of Germany was achieved by twin thrusts across the flat plains of northern Europe, while Churchill’s “soft underbelly” strategy of attacking through mountainous Italy was much slower and more costly.
    Invading Norway should also be a more difficult proposition.
    Regarding effects, tanks shouldn’t have 2 movement points in any case, but they should only attack at 2 against mountains. Similarly, artillery’s bonus to infantry should apply in defence of mountains, but not when attacking them.
    We might consider applying infantry defence at 2 to DT only, and perhaps reducing the attack values of aircraft vs DT.

    The way I understand AA to be when on the global scale, is a simple elegant design.  We are talking about very broad movement, not “my artilary is stationed in the mountains while your infantry is in a fox hole for this battle”.  This doesn’t and can’t go into consideration for a game on this scale, particularly a game that tries to keep things somewhat simple and streamlined.  If terrain is too much to deal with simply make it impassible (such as the Sahara or Mountains).  If the Allies invade Italy, we don’t know how they invade it, where they land, where they fight, or how they fight, or even how many battles are fought (perhaps the landing is actually symbolic of a series of battles that take place in the year that the turn represents) this game can not handle such a function well I don’t think.

    And on a minor and more insignificant note:  Italy is harder to invade anyway due too its geographic position in AA.



  • Well, first I dont think Italy should be mountanous. and axis and allies can simulate terrain effect quite well. Some territories like the balkans and persia are filled with mountains, so while campaiging in those countries tanks would show to be much less effective even in a game the scale of Axis and Allies.



  • Basicaly all land units should defend on 4 or less in rough terrain.

    Rough terrain, like mountains, snow, forests with marshes etc do favour the defender, and this should be representet in the game, even in this scale. In mountains the attacker must move through narrow passes that are easy to defend. Just look how king Leonidas and his 300 warriors stopped the persians at the Thermopylene pass. In winter the attacker will freeze to death. In severe cold, half the casualties will come from frostbite and cold injuries. Even an easy wound will be lethal. Just compare the casualty rate during campaigns in winter. The only logical way will be to let all defending land units hit on a 4 or less.

    In the scale of A&A 1942, my opinion is that Norway, Caucasus, Canada and Sovjet far east should have mountain terrain where all land units defend on 4 or less.
    Finland, Karelia, Archangelsk and every northern sovjet territory should have forest with marshes and snow, where all land units defend on 3 or less.

    If neutral spain come in play, the spanish hills with lots of sun is not rough enough to give any boosts, but between Spain and France the Phyrenean Alps should have a mountain pass, and if anyone attack through that pass, land units defend on 3 or less. It should also be mountain passes between Italy and France, Italy and Germany, Balkan and Turkey, Caucasus and Turkey, Caucasus and Persia etc.

    Oh, look at this video to get a grip of what mountain fighting is like

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kgk20mihjX4&NR=1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjDnQRA5dy8&feature=related



  • I agree with dondoolee.
    Because this is on a global scale and it is too difficult to simulate all possible terrain obstacles, and they want to keep the game play streamlined, you really cannot introduce terrain costs or attack / defense changes as this will slow down play and created a whole bunch of variables that may change game play significantly.

    The artillery issue is another thing all together. The game does not differentiate between long range “indirect” or short range “direct” artillery.
    My thought would be to add one free shot to the defender if he has an artillery in that square, to represent the long range aspect. This would be like the anti-aircraft shot at the beginning of a battle. You would have one dice for every artillery but they would only hit ground units and only on a dice roll of one, and they would only get the free roll at the first round of battle.



  • @Emperor_Taiki:

    Well, first I dont think Italy should be mountanous.

    neither did the Allies, but they were wrong too.

    from wiki on Italian Campaign:
    _It is estimated that between September 1943 and April 1945 some 60,000 Allied and 50,000 German soldiers died in Italy.[nb 5] Total Allied casualties during the campaign totaled over 320,000 and the corresponding Axis figure (excluding those involved in the final surrender) was over 658,000.[7] No campaign in western Europe cost more than Italy, in terms of lives lost and wounds suffered by infantry forces.[8]

    As the Allies advanced north, they encountered increasingly difficult terrain: the Apennine Mountains form a spine along the Italian peninsula offset somewhat to the east. In the most mountainous areas of the Abbruzzi more that half the width of the peninsula comprises crests and peaks over 3,000 feet (910 m) which are relatively easy to defend and the spurs and re-entrants to the spine confronted the Allies with a succession of ridges and rivers across their line of advance. The rivers were subject to sudden and unexpected flooding which constantly thwarted the Allied commanders’ plans_

    256px-Italia_fisica_appennini.png



  • please, I understand there are mountains in Italy, I think it  is representitve enough to have them in the balkans, of course that opinion is subject too change based on what the rules for mountains are.

    and those are nice video’s Adlertag, it looks like they are having fun 😉.



  • I know Emp.  I was just messing with you.  just couldn’t pass up the way you wrote the sentence. 😄

    Separating of territories can work to display mountains, just as was tried by adding spaces in AA50 through Siberia to help with the speed of crossing.

    In AA50 if Italy was split into 2=north and south/sicily or sicily separate.  Balkans was split in half to north/south yugo or even yugo and albania/greece and split Bulgaria/Romania into 2 as well. 
    in AAR, or a redo of this map into AA42, my word, Southern Europe includes Italy, Yugo, part of Greece, Albania, part of Czech, then there is the ‘Balkans’, which is actually Romania, Hungary, part of Czech and Greece.  A revision of this into AA42 could split thses 2 territories into 4 and this would effectively create the mountainous feel based on the amount of extra time needed to traverse without special defend/attack rules based on the terrain.
      Even in a smaller maped game like AAR or AA42, some of these territories can be split up without overcrowding…



  • @LuckyDay:

    I know Emp.  I was just messing with you.  just couldn’t pass up the way you wrote the sentence. 😄

    Separating of territories can work to display mountains, just as was tried by adding spaces in AA50 through Siberia to help with the speed of crossing.

    In AA50 if Italy was split into 2=north and south/sicily or sicily separate.  Balkans was split in half to north/south yugo or even yugo and albania/greece and split Bulgaria/Romania into 2 as well. 
    in AAR, or a redo of this map into AA42, my word, Southern Europe includes Italy, Yugo, part of Greece, Albania, part of Czech, then there is the ‘Balkans’, which is actually Romania, Hungary, part of Czech and Greece.  A revision of this into AA42 could split thses 2 territories into 4 and this would effectively create the mountainous feel based on the amount of extra time needed to traverse without special defend/attack rules based on the terrain.
      Even in a smaller maped game like AAR or AA42, some of these territories can be split up without overcrowding…

    yah, I guess I agree. But if any new territries are added in AA42 I think it will be Bruma and maybe a third chinese, sigh.



  • @Emperor_Taiki:

    @LuckyDay:

    I know Emp.  I was just messing with you.  just couldn’t pass up the way you wrote the sentence. 😄

    Separating of territories can work to display mountains, just as was tried by adding spaces in AA50 through Siberia to help with the speed of crossing.

    In AA50 if Italy was split into 2=north and south/sicily or sicily separate.  Balkans was split in half to north/south yugo or even yugo and albania/greece and split Bulgaria/Romania into 2 as well. 
    in AAR, or a redo of this map into AA42, my word, Southern Europe includes Italy, Yugo, part of Greece, Albania, part of Czech, then there is the ‘Balkans’, which is actually Romania, Hungary, part of Czech and Greece.  A revision of this into AA42 could split thses 2 territories into 4 and this would effectively create the mountainous feel based on the amount of extra time needed to traverse without special defend/attack rules based on the terrain.
      Even in a smaller maped game like AAR or AA42, some of these territories can be split up without overcrowding…

    yah, I guess I agree. But if any new territries are added in AA42 I think it will be Bruma and maybe a third chinese, sigh.

    I agree that if you want to “simulate” rough terrain it should be more done by map design movement than combat rules.  To me this captures the spirit of AA on a global level much more than special combat rules



  • @dondoolee:

    No rough terrain should be more for tactical type games, A&A is a strategic game.  All you need to know is what terrain one can move through.

    actually
    never stood still by the difference between a strategic and a tactical game
    you’re right 😄


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

77
Online

14.4k
Users

34.9k
Topics

1.4m
Posts