That's one of my pet peeves when reading a lot of complaints about new board designs -- armies generally have to deal with the terrain they encounter "as is," they don't get to complain that trees are blocking what would be a great LOS or that the configuration of the buildings precludes VBM.Maybe I am missing something but it is not like the terrain the various armies ran across was designed with ASL in mind. Isn't the idea to use what is there to the best of one's abilities?
Wow. Your B.1 must be worded very differently to mine. Mine gives guidance on how to interpret existing board artwork so as to avoid confusion. It says nothing about creating new board artwork that might cause confusion, which most rational folks would conclude would be a poor idea and should be avoided (especially when it's really, really easy to do so).B.1 says you can put your grain or brush wherever looks best.
You're just being obstinate.Wow. Your B.1 must be worded very differently to mine.
For aesthetic purposes, terrain symbology may extend marginally out of a hex into an adjacent hex of another type, but most hexes are dominated by one specific terrain type...
Here's a a draft village with more steppe-like terrain and hedges as fence "design for effect"
I think of it as the bridge was placed there as a necessary crossing and the marsh slowly dried up or was drained over time.I agree. Not to be nitpicky but building a bridge is not an easy undertaking, so seeing one placed in an avoidable location seems unrealistic. I otherwise really like the map.
Why?I'm not a fan of how one can't lay a firelane down the road. Unless there is some special EXC that I'm not aware of for the narrow roads.
I like the hedges between the grain hexes. It's new, cuts down the LOS, it's unique and 'snappy'.One wonders who in their right mind would build a bridge over some marsh when beating a road around the marsh would take considerably less effort. Erecting that bridge would have taken more effort than building both hamlets combined.
Otherwise seems logical enough, but as stated above, I don't believe all those hedges should be there. The wooden fences between each plot are not worthy of being depicted on the map, for the most part.
That little quarry in O2 needs a little pond beside it -- maybe just a hexside pond across N1/O2.
Just say no to barb wire. Too much pain for too little gain.what's wrong with using barb wire fence rules from the various official HASLs it appears in to denote the fence effects and thens using the artwork that already is used on official HASL maps?
Why? Because I look at the pictures in the original post and they seem pretty straight. So straight that nothing seems to interfere with LOS down them. To design for that effect, the road should run down a hexgrain. The lack of cover also means crossing the street would perilous. Far more perilous than a Snap Shot. To design for that effect, the roads should be in their own hex.Why?
If I'm defending that town I'm digging Foxholes in the grainfields like it's nobodies business. Because that's where the action's at... keeping the attacker out of town, because once he gets in it turns into a CC brawl.
My take on the terrain, Marks photos, and east front memoirs is that when down in the saddle troops were unable to see over the next rise. Thus level 1 hills seems to best represent the situation over slopes and hillocks (plus my graphic for hillocks sucks!). if this was a fort board, I would mix in all three but I feel this best represents the "feel" for what you can do with a geo-board. Point taken about the valley hexsides.I like that, but how about replacing the hills with Slope or even hillock terrain? I think BFP's CoS maps did a good job in replicating 'Open' (Ukrainian/Russian) Steppe on some of the maps.