Uhm, I think you go downhill real fast!What happens if you combine Steep Hills and Alpine Hills?
Uhm, I think you go downhill real fast!What happens if you combine Steep Hills and Alpine Hills?
Only on skiis...Uhm, I think you go downhill real fast!
The Stonne module prohibits vehicles moving up the forested hills and forces them follow the road - with the hex exiting the sunken road being problematic, as the French can concentrate all their AT defenses on it.Over 140 views and yet no replies?
One aspect of the steep hills rules is how it changes the mindset on how to approach a scenario. I am reading many books on regions that would have mountains and continue to come across comments that the area is not tank country or "no place for tanks".
So, now try to play a Cassino style scenario in ASL. Without steep hills, your tanks are free to try to ascend any hill. Steep hills prevents that from happening, thereby retaining more of the historical "flavor" of that scenario. CH!'s Stonne Heights comes to mind as well. In that CG (very good by the way) you can try to avoid going up the one mountain road by trying to negotiate your tanks through a forested hill. Not historical and not possible in real life. Add in steep hills and that possibility is eliminated. With steep hills the HASL now becomes more historically accurate.
Or if you're pushed, e.g., "The Princess Bride"Only on skiis...
I am currently designing scenarios that include KWASL's steep hills rules (W. 1.3). In addition to scenarios set in Korea the majority of these scenarios take place in WW2. The purpose of this thread is to discuss your views on these rules and if these should be expanded. I can use more feedback.
After six months of testing and playing nothing but Steep Hill scenarios I have really become fond of these rules. Your set up is different--no tanks can set up in steep hills unless it is on a road hex). Tactics are different. AFVs will not climb a hill and try to bypass freeze your opponent in a building on a hill that is not adjacent to a road hex. Steep hill hexes are concealment terrain. You assaualt move with a -1 DRM coming back at you.
Now, place caves in steep hill hexes and what type of game play does that bring forth.
So, this is the idea. I can use any feedback (yes, silly feedback is always accepted--I love a good laugh!) on this. Are there any other nuances you have uncovered through game play?
Thoughts? What is wrong or right about these rules?
Please, fire away.
Or SSR in, if you really wanted/needed it. Because yeah, I'm just not buying that Korean hills had really that much undulation to warrant it.Easy enough to SSR out though without affecting much other rules.
Fair enough. I will leave any rationale up to the KWASL design team - I just edited/proofed the rules.No big deal. Just commenting on what seemed like an odd choice, to me.
How would you handle sloped hills that are also considered steep? Just add the existing MF penalties?I am glad that you liked the rules. I created the concept when I realized that the existing ASL hill rules did not adequately model the effects that we wanted for the KW. A lot of my insights came from a visit not to Korea but rather to Israel, when I was looking at the terrain on the road that approaches Jerusalem from the west, and it was clear that ASL rules needed some additions for that kind of terrain.
How would you handle sloped hills that are also considered steep? Just add the existing MF penalties?
I have only played one FW scenario with Steep Hills. I was not a fan of the rules - I didn't like that they were concealment terrain, even to units at a higher level. I do like them being pretty much impassable to vehicles.
Kenneth, was it to simulate the many folds in the terrain that such terrain seems to produce, or was it more a game effect rationale?The effect is realistic IMHO. Without concealment, it is too easy to dominate the hill from a good position on top.