Terrain Types

We've talked about Advanced A&A... Now I'd like to hear your comments on what YOU envision a DELUXE A&A GAME to be. What would it look like.

Should the game include more terrain types?

Yes, add mountains and other "difficult" terrain.
13
72%
No, keep all land areas plain.
5
28%
 
Total votes: 18

User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Terrain Types

Post by Flashman » Sun May 06, 2007 10:46 am

Should a deluxe game feature different terrain types such as mountainous areas which hamper movement and give defensive combat advantages?

A classic example of how this might improve historical accuracy is Norway. Looking at the A&A board, Norway is an obvious target for the Allies. It is cut off from the rest of German territory overland, and affords a bridge into Soviet territory for the Western Allies.
Yet after Churchill's failed attempt to oust the Germans from the country, the Allies never attempted a further invasion despite the obvious threat it would have placed on the German's supply of iron ore. Norway remained occupied by German troops 'till the end of the war.
The reason? The mountainous terrain provided immense difficulties to an invader against a well-established garrison. It was far easier to land in France and drive into Germany across the flat north European plains.

So, would you like to see such factors illustrated in the game, or are terrain types too much of a generalisation on a map of this scale and slow down the game with more unwanted complexity?

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Sun May 06, 2007 1:33 pm

The game should have marshlands, mountains,desert, and jungle terrain.

No rivers
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Black Fox
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:19 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

Post by Black Fox » Mon May 07, 2007 12:11 am

If terrain is added I would recommend the following.

Jungle - All land units move at one. Armor can not blitz.
Mountain (Passible) - All land units move at one. Armor can not blitz.
Mountain (Impassible) - No land units may enter and pass.
Desert - No vehicle may enter and pass. Infinrty can.

I would not include marshes becaue there isnt one big enough that would cover an entire zone.

User avatar
adlertag
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:28 pm
Location: norway

Post by adlertag » Mon May 07, 2007 12:57 am

TERRAIN FAVOURS THE DEFENDER

In mountains and jungle, all defending units defend at 3 or less.

Deserts is like open water, perfect to mechanized combat and manouver warfare.

In map, Norway and Italy (Southern Europe) and Balkan has mountain.
Historical, just remember the battles of Monte Cassino.

Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Mon May 07, 2007 8:31 am

Comments noted

Black Fox
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:19 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

Post by Black Fox » Mon May 07, 2007 1:18 pm

When you consider terrain on the A&A map. You have to remember that territories encompass huge amount of terrain. In most cases no one type of terrain will encompass one whole territorry. Because of this I think terrain has limit role in A&A.

Even if a territory id covered by one type of terrain it may not necessarly impeed movement. For example French Indochina would be considered primarly jungle but for the most part the Japanese use roads and rails to move soldiers & equiptment. In some area though you could only get through by foot and mule but this was more the exception than the norm and usually whole divisions were not moved in this manner. There are some exceptions though like Burma & Bangladesh but these have been lumped together with Indochina & India.

You also, have to consider what the pieces represent. An infantry piece is actually representing multiple divisions of 20~50,000 soildiers.

By the way, I should have clarified the desert. There should be 2 type passible (like North Africa) and semi-impassible (like the Sahara). The one I was thinking about was the Sahara. Histrory has shown that troops did move through the sand but I'm not sure if whole divisions have. Hmm, that's a difficult choice to delcare it as passable or impassable.
In mountains and jungle, all defending units defend at 3 or less.
The jungle should have no advantage in defending. Jungle only provides an advantage in an ambush and even then only for the first few minutes. After that muzzle flashes start giving away everyones location. Jungles can also assist the attackers by allowing them to flank unseen. Another reason for no jungle advantage for defenders is that it never really helped the Japanese against our Marines!

Mountains however do provide an advantage if you have the high ground but if aircraft are involved that advantage is lost.

Another thing to consider is time. One turn probably represents several months of real time.

One last thing when considering rule changes. A&A is primarly a Strategic game and not a tactical one.

The nice things about A&A is that it is not overly complicated. If rules are added it should be ones that enhance the overall enjoyment of the game and not complicate it.

templeton
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:52 am

Post by templeton » Fri May 18, 2007 7:08 am

Black Fox wrote:Jungle only provides an advantage in an ambush and even then only for the first few minutes. After that muzzle flashes start giving away everyones location. Jungles can also assist the attackers by allowing them to flank unseen.
But this is a description of a tactical situation... as you say we are talking at the Strategic level, and Junle helps the defender by proving to be a difficult terrain to attack through.

It is hard to deliver logistics, to create rail and road links in order to keep an army supplied and on the move. Now in the case of Indochina, there is enough infrastucture to move an Army through, but is that true of the terrain around Burma?

In short, jungle is a very difficult terrain to move an Army through... and if there are only limited road/rail links, a modern army would soon clog them up with the logistics needs.


However, it would be interesting to try and determine what effect, if any, Jungle had on the war. It seems it was only really a factor around Burma, and Malyasia, where infrasture was not built as heavily as Indochina.

Again, the only other factor is that Japan didn't have the same logistics train as the Allies, and so was perhaps less hindered by Jungle than the largely motorised Allied Armies.

User avatar
Craig A Yope
Posts: 820
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:23 am
Location: Saint Clair, MI

Post by Craig A Yope » Fri May 18, 2007 8:26 am

To include terrain you would need a map with more territories.

The map in Revised convers too much area in each territory to have terrain. If you break up the territories more then you can get to the level of terrain.

Check out this game and its map:

http://www.ww2wargame.com
http://www.ww2wargame.com./forum/

It is what my group is currently playing. It has many more territories and consequently it can handle terrain.

Craig

Why isn't there the ability to attach our own files onto post in this forum? Seems a bit behind the times not to be able to.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest