ASL GEOMORPHIC BOARDS: THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY

[FrankH.]

This topic occured because I had some time and the interest to look at all the ASL geomorphic boards in a new light following the recent topic of direction for ASL boards. As I never tried to design a scenario using the geomorphic boards, until recently I did not pay that much attention to the details.

This is my limited review. If there is sufficient interest I can do a more detailed one. Others are invited or comment or point out things that I may have missed. I review only boards 1 through 47.

Jump ahead to boards 34-39 (PTO terrain types with woods and orchards at board edges). This set of boards, included in Code of Bushido and Gung Ho!, in my view are the nicest as a group. What I like about these boards is that they have relatively straight roads, or in the case of some board edges, none at all. The vast majority of the paths travel in a direction that make sense, either towards a road or building, or along a stream bank and / or bypassing woods that is not otherwise easy to go around.

As far as I can see, there are no roads or paths entering the board edge only to stop after a few hexes for no apparent reason.

Boards 34 through 39 all go well together. In general they are excellent.

Board 47 at first glance seems also to be a PTO style board. But I am not sure. The orchard board edge hexes do not match the 34- 39 types, yet the buildings are "hut" type along a watery stream in a depression, and there are ponds at board edges in rows k and w, and a stream in row w. Not sure...but interesting board with a large depression partially surrounded by hills. There are two roads that enter the board and then stop after 1 hex (why?). One nice path parallels the stream (an excellent idea that should be used on other boards). However, I could have imagined the path leading to a ford and continuing on the other side of the stream connecting the two "villages".

There are two other boards with large depression areas. These are 24 and
41. Without getting into details about these two right now, I just wanted to mention that should boards have depression terrain, the logical assumption is that there would be soom method of drainage (unless it really is a swamp). Unfortunately there is no way to connect these 3 boards so as to create a larger depression or to see some drainage. Perhaps in future depression boards could continue up to the top or bottom edges to match with the river boards edge water protocol (baords 7, 8, and 40).

On to board 24, one sees a village built in a depression. Does it flood when streams are flooded? There is a dry gully that drains into the depression, then splits in two, one segment going into a woods. That to me seems rather odd. I could see two gullies coming together in the depression, but splitting? The road make sense, and the paths mostly do.

Anyone who has looked at board 41 will see that it is unique. Many stone buildings on hills and around road networks, and a depression area (with a wooden building and some grainfields!). Perhaps the Germans were experimenting with rice agriculture and the building is an agricultural research station... There is a gully that forms at the top of a hill and drains into a swampy pond in the depression. The road network makes sense, including the fact that much of it is paved except near the swamy depression area. Perhaps this terrain matches some part of Europe, in the hilly suburbs.....

That's enough for now. I can add later my ideas of the other boards.

Frank H.

 

[Anonymous]

Here’s my take on this:

Good: Function and form must come together for a geoboard to be considered good. Boards 1-4 (S.Moores) are very nice mainly because of their generic versatility and blurry/arty visuals. Board 11 is nice, but somewhat limited with it’s Level 1 terrain. A couple of the Code of Bushido boards are very versatile and nice to look at. Board 43 is nice for it’s unique but versatile layout and execution. Board 45 - in spite of it’s awkward technical layout (oversized terrain overlap), I like the layout and execution of this one.

Bad: Where function was forgotten: Boards 10,12,24 – I don’t like the logic and openness of the town and road networks (but well executed), boards 13,14,32,38,41,47 are so specialized they aren’t used much. I hate when that happens. Such a waste of energy and money. Board 38 (Gung Ho wooded ridge) is so beautiful – and probably took longer than any board to do – what a shame.

Ugly: Where form is ugly including the city boards 20-23 (the roads/walls mainly – sorry Charlie). Board 41 is too busy, and Board 46 is a weird combination of open and densely packed village terrain (poor execution of open terrain – wish I could take it back).

Geoboards to a greater or lesser extent fail IMO when the following happens:
- too specialized terrain is used (There are exceptions to this at times when only a specialized type – wide river, steep hill, dense city, is possible – but keep this as generic as possible).
- Too many terrain types squeezed onto one board. Where are we? – France, Russia? I like to feel like I’m somewhere in particular.
- A generic board messed up by adding one chunk of weird one-off terrain.
- Illogical terrain. Nature especially, and to a lesser degree human engineering, is logical in terms of layout. Roads take curves when and only when they need to avoid stuff – like terrain or man-made objects of resistance. Buildings normally have roads leading to them, and large buildings usually aren’t located in rural areas (use an overlay). Woods aren’t normally found in heavily urbanized areas (use an overlay). Cultivated fields usually are in lowlands, not on hilltops, and so on.

 

[TankDawg]

Don,

Good comments. But one I have an issue with your hilltops. And this is something I struggle with a TON and why I LOVE slopes...

those are NOT hilltops. Yes, they are brown, but military speaking 10 feet does NOT make a hill!

:shock:

 

[FrankH.]

Well Don Petros obviously knows boards from a designers point of view. I will continue to post my impressions (from someone only recently concerned with details of the boards). In the end I suspect our comments will be similar, but for now I will not let his influence what I see.

Boards 16, 17, 18, 19, 33, 43, and 44 seem to fit into a set of largely open ground and farmland, farmhouses, road networks, with brush, grain, and orchards. Board 18 is a bit different with seven rolling hills and 2 gullies in addition. I think these are all nice boards with the exception of a few (see 16 and 17) that have board edge roads that go for a hex or two and end nowhere or in the middle of a woods. By the time 33 was made it was possible for a board edge road to have building instead of a road. True also with 43. For some reason 44 forgets this and once again has a road that ends after one hex without a break or path across a woods towards the closest road. Another board 44 road seems to lead only to a single orchard hex. By the way, I see no reason why roads might not end only to be picked up or continued as paths through a woods, or for that matter why paths are shown only at woods or brush hexes. Paths might also go through hedges, walls, grain, or even open ground if or no other reason to link up with a road for artistic purposes. SSR might give a path in open ground some benefit such as against night straying or a TEM...

I particularly like board 18 not only as it is unique with rolling hills but the gullies and the road tend to parallel the hills diagonally across the board. I think we could do with one other board similar to this, perhaps with rolling level 2/3 hills, a stream, forest, and / or a small village. The village could be at one of the corners of the map. Why are most villages, even the smallest hamlets, usually at the center of the map or the center of the half mapboard? My only question about board 18 is why a hedge is found running from ground level up to a level 1 hill. Exactly how high is level 1 from level 0? 10 feet seems rather short. For most non Asian multi story buildings 10 feet is the absolute minimum ceiling height. Is it not closer to 20 feet? or perhaps 10 meters for major city buildings?

I can see a fence going up a hill but not a hedge or a wall (except in sheep country...)

This leads into board 11, which has hedges and roads running up and down level 1 hills rather than along level ground for want of a few downed trees. Now if it was one impassible hill that would make sense. Yes there is 2 buildings on one of the hills, and a road there makes sense (but not the main through road, or am I missing something). Also, grain on one of the hills? I can see brush or orchards, but a grainfield?

That's all for now..

Frank

 

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't treat the hills as literally 10 feet tall per level. As with everything in a game, I view it as an abstraction. This elevation is high enough to warrant being an extra level higher than the surrounding terrain. Hills vs. slopes never really bother me, I think both are fine.