East Front - maps, overlays, scenarios

[Old Noob]

I can see the latest module from a company in NY - Children of the Cornfield ASL.

 

[FrankH.]

Cornfields would not slow down a tracked or armored vehicle anymore than other grain. Wheeled non-armored probably 1 MP extra (so 6 MP for "trucks") They should definitely be 2MF for Infantry though.

Firelanes should be fine as is. With three hexes preventing them entirely.

Make corn same as Grain, but with a season within the season for the corn add ons.

My argument for the increased movement cost should have been more clear. The moving unit, be it infantry, cavalry or even fully tracked vehicles, cannot so readily see the ground ahead. So even if the ground and the footing is mostly flat, solid and stable, the unit has to go just a bit slower to avoid getting hurt (or a vehicle damaged) by going into the odd and hard to predict bump or rut. That argument would be in addition to the need to push - or force its way - through the corn plants.

SSR# - Late Season Corn is in effect, each grain hex is a +2 LOS Hindrance with a +1 TEM and Costs Infantry 2MFs to enter, any vehicle must as add an MP if fully tracked / a half track or 2 MPs if not. It is Bog terrain with a +1 DRM for non-tracked vehicles.

I would simply increase the COT over a grain hex by 1/2 MF for Infantry and Cavalry, and by an additional 1 MP for ALL vehicles (OK maybe by 1/2 MP if fully tracked), to be as concise as possible.

As far as "It is Bog terrain with a +1 DRM for non-tracked vehicles." That is possible. Especially for small vehicle like kubelwagon with its low horsepower engine, for motorcycles, for horse-drawn wagons, or for fully laden trucks (e.g.., filled to 3/4 of its PP capacity).

 

[Vic Provost]

My argument for the increased movement cost should have been more clear. The moving unit, be it infantry, cavalry or even fully tracked vehicles, cannot so readily see the ground ahead. So even if the ground and the footing is mostly flat, solid and stable, the unit has to go just a bit slower to avoid getting hurt (or a vehicle damaged) by going into the odd and hard to predict bump or rut. That argument would be in addition to the need to push - or force its way - through the corn plants.



I would simply increase the COT over a grain hex by 1/2 MF for Infantry and Cavalry, and by an additional 1 MP for ALL vehicles (OK maybe by 1/2 MP if fully tracked), to be as concise as possible.

As far as "It is Bog terrain with a +1 DRM for non-tracked vehicles." That is possible. Especially for small vehicle like kubelwagon with its low horsepower engine, for motorcycles, for horse-drawn wagons, or for fully laden trucks (e.g.., filled to 3/4 of its PP capacity).

I think what I came up with works, we'll see if anyone incorporates any/all of it.

 

[von Marwitz]

So far the discussion seems to have focused on LOS at a human height view (infantry perspective). What about AFVs? I think from the turret of a mid or late war tank, the cornfield would be much less of a hindrance to firing on another tank, but perhaps more difficult to see infantry even nearby, hidden by the corn. This notion of adding nuance to grainfield to account for tall crops is interesting, but brings a number of issues with it. Difficult to strike a balance between realism and rule overburden.
The approach via SSR is probably the best one currently. For example, in the draft scenario 'The Cornfields' by DonWPetros found earlier in this thread, the cornfield hexes are treated as half-level obstacles to same level LOS, which works well to represent the difficulties for the German tankers to see nearby Soviet infantry. The scenario having only tanks on one side does not address, however, my broader point about AFV-to-AFV LOS in tall crops like cornfield.

Maybe from a turret of an AFV you could see over the corn. Nevertheless, you still could not see any infantry hiding within the corn only a few meters away.

von Marwitz

 

[DonWPetros]

Maybe from a turret of an AFV you could see over the corn. Nevertheless, you still could not see any infantry hiding within the corn only a few meters away.von Marwitz

Which brings me to mention that Concealment gain should probably be given to Russian infantry inside a Cornfield at their turn end, provided there is >= one Cornfield hex between said Russian and German.

 

[FrankH.]

Which brings me to mention that Concealment gain should probably be given to Russian infantry inside a Cornfield at their turn end, provided there is >= one Cornfield hex between said Russian and German.

I don't see how this could be implemented; it goes against the concealment gain/loss rules (A12.121). There is no concealement gain possibility, if in LOS, within 16 hexes, regardless of the terrain.

But, if your SSR designates Russians (for any reasons) as stealthy, they would get a -1 drm to the concealment gain A12.122. Or, another SSR could designated Russians get a -1 drm in Cornfields. But such a SSR/drm may as well apply to Russians, generally, in any terrain - like the -2 afforded Japanese (?)

I have not seen a workable rule that a certain terrain (in this case Cornfield), though only a hindrance, is so dense as to allow a special option of concealment gain. Maybe there should be such a rule? Not sure. Or, a special-case SSR allowing concealment gain for infantry in concealment terrain, within 16 hexes? But what would be the argument for that?

Overall, any higher hindrance of Cornfields (+2 is mentioned) would increase the chances that a Russian unit would be out of all German LOS, and this would make it easier to gain concealment.

 

[Westy]

@DonWPetros do you have an SSR for cornfields worked out?

Late to thread so apologies if I’m off the mark. Cornfields would definitely block LOS but not LOF if moving unit was noisy. I have draft of SSR (or chapt B cornfield rules) if interested.

 

[gorkowskij]

We're going down "Rabbit Hole Road" again. Try not to over think this and remember the need for abstraction to keep it playable. Just because I can't see you doesn't mean you are concealed. If a saw you a moment ago, or witnessed some solid evidence of your presence such as gun bursts/flashes or bending cornstalks, then I know enough about where you are to lay down effective fire. Start with grain then plus up the hindrance and MF/MP cost to get a reasonable approximation of corn.

 

[Vic Provost]

How about if you are looking down the row of corn? You can see a lot farther than if trying to look against it.past

I agree, Simple SSR for +2 per hex once past the mid-point of the growing season. See my proposed SSR, above BUT
this is a lot of speculation for little gain in real game play, it cannot be an obstacle to LOS unless going through multiple
hexes and can't have TEM approaching a stone building. Enough with the corn, although corn on the cobb sure sounds
good about now! Back to work on Dispatch #57...

 

[DonWPetros]

Late to thread so apologies if I’m off the mark. Cornfields would definitely block LOS but not LOF if moving unit was noisy. I have draft of SSR (or chapt B cornfield rules) if interested.

Would like to see it!

 

[DonWPetros]

Didn't mean to turn this thread into a sidetrack Cornfield conversation.. Really had intended to discuss whether there's interest in East Front scenarios, etc.. (sigh)

 

[Jeffery]

"Really had intended to discuss whether there's interest in East Front scenarios "
Always interested, from 1941 to 1945.

 

[Ric of The LBC]

Corn rows?

 

[FrankH.]

Didn't mean to turn this thread into a sidetrack Cornfield conversation.. Really had intended to discuss whether there's interest in East Front scenarios, etc.. (sigh)

If there is this much interest in corn then there is interest in rural East Front scenarios. At least the southern half thereof.

 

[FrankH.]

How about if you are looking down the row of corn? You can see a lot farther than if trying to look against it.past

I agree, Simple SSR for +2 per hex once past the mid-point of the growing season.

 

[FrankH.]

This is actually a very intesting point, that might be developed: some terrain actually has, or may have, a "grain". Vineyards, "grain", and "olive grove". are examples. Certainly there is an existing rule for the grain of a "orchard-road" hex.

It might open up ideas for SSRs, and even new terrain depictions, down the road. For example, indicate the grain of cultivated fields by placing a single counter like the 5/8" wind direction. A LOS in the direction of the grain might be one less hindrance than it would be against the grain.

I can envision other possible applications of this idea but will not go into them here.

 

[johnl]

For all you urban cowboys, this is an out-of-season cornfield (before the stalks are moved down).

 

[gorkowskij]

And, here's Kunai. Literally speaking, it too blocks LOS; yet the ASL rules treat it merely as a hindrance - same as grain. Why? Because (like corn) it's not really cover (a hard stop) but just rather concealment (a visual obstruction) through which one can "perceive" enemy units even if he can't "see" them. For example, take the Brits in the pic. Are they completely silent? Probably not. Could you hear their cursing? As they move, do they disturb the undergrowth and thereby signal their location? Probably. If they fire, or suffer a casualty who screams, you certainly know their location, even if you can't actually see them. Hence all this stuff is best handled like grain, for the most part.

6.5K views · 248 reactions | When Kunai grass is mentioned in Guadalcanal readings this is what they are referring to. This is the short stuff by the way! The temperature goes up a... | By Guadalcanal - Walking a BattlefieldFacebook

When Kunai grass is mentioned in Guadalcanal readings this is what they are referring to. This is the short stuff by the way! The temperature goes up a...

www.facebook.com

 

[rottenroller]

I don't see how this could be implemented; it goes against the concealment gain/loss rules (A12.121). There is no concealement gain possibility, if in LOS, within 16 hexes, regardless of the terrain.

But, if your SSR designates Russians (for any reasons) as stealthy, they would get a -1 drm to the concealment gain A12.122. Or, another SSR could designated Russians get a -1 drm in Cornfields. But such a SSR/drm may as well apply to Russians, generally, in any terrain - like the -2 afforded Japanese (?)

I have not seen a workable rule that a certain terrain (in this case Cornfield), though only a hindrance, is so dense as to allow a special option of concealment gain. Maybe there should be such a rule? Not sure. Or, a special-case SSR allowing concealment gain for infantry in concealment terrain, within 16 hexes? But what would be the argument for that?

Overall, any higher hindrance of Cornfields (+2 is mentioned) would increase the chances that a Russian unit would be out of all German LOS, and this would make it easier to gain concealment.

Might want to go and read the Bocage rules. In particular, B9.55 Concealment.
Yes, you can be in LOS of an enemy unit and still gain concealment under the right circumstances.

 

[semenza]

How about if you are looking down the row of corn? You can see a lot farther than if trying to look against it.past

You asked so ..................

Yes, BUT, the visibility is a very narrow tunnel so in truth not much better than looking across rows.

Seth