Geoboards - Boards 1,2,3,4 - 'Look Alike boards'

[zgrose]

The local airfield here in Plymouth Michigan is 2,302 feet long and the other airfield I am familiar with is 3000 feet long.

I guess it matters what's landing on em. Wikipedia says: "Runway dimensions vary from as small as 245 m (804 ft) long and 8 m (26 ft) wide in smaller general aviation airports, to 5,500 m (18,045 ft) long and 80 m (262 ft) wide at large international airports built to accommodate the largest jets, to the huge 11,917 m × 274 m (39,098 ft × 899 ft) lake bed runway 17/35 at Edwards Air Force Base in California – developed as a landing site for the Space Shuttle."

 

[von Marwitz]

I'm no pilot, but the airfield on map 14 is only 7 hexes long, that's 840 feet. I believe a very small runway is at least 1000 feet long. And the overlay that came with ASLSK 4 was only 4 hexes long.

A 'Paved' runway of 840 feet is very much abstraction. I am truly not very knowledgable with regard to WW2 airforce technicalities, but I think if the effort is taken to pave a runway, then it would have been longer. Many smaller aircraft & fighters could operate from unpaved open ground - as long as it was not softened up too much by weather conditions.

Fighters could clear the ground needing well below 840 feet from a paved runway. They may probably have made it as well with that distance at hand from unpaved ground.

In any case I have never viewed the bd 14 airfield to be anything but an abstraction. While one might imagine a special case of a fighter base with soft ground requiring a short paved runway, the buildings are much too close to it.

Airforce freaks might likely be able to tear apart the bd 14 airfield much more.
That said, the unpaved bd 38 airfield 'felt' ok for me.

von Marwitz

 

[Tuomo]

Board 38 is really more of a helo airfield anyway

 

[von Marwitz]

Board 38 is really more of a helo airfield anyway

I think the board designers were merely reluctant to 'bocage' the aircraft parking lot...

von Marwitz

 

[bprobst]

Remember that so far as the rules are concerned, Board 38 is just a weird dirt road pattern.

And if the terrain is PTO, it all becomes a weird path pattern!

 

[DWPetros]

I think that special features (ie. airfields) which can be easily substituted with a decent sized overlay, should not be used. Keep it clean, as open as possible, and versatile. (how often has B14 airfield been used?)

More importantly:

Look-alike boards (ie. Boards 1,2,3,4 - maybe some few others that are used much), would simply be nice, but neither do they represent the most important or interesting geoboard ideas. There are others that are more important to think about IMO.

- Historical geoboards: Boards that largely resemble a particular historical place of battle (St.Mere Eglise, Teploye, to name two) and which would not necessitate a large HASL production while still doing these battles geographical justice (which current battles in such locations using standard geoboards fail to do), seem a very good idea.

- 1/2 board Overlays (such as used in CoB) would expand terrain options at a two-for-one ratio - seem like a good idea.

- Village / City / Rural open boards of a generic nature to use in all theaters. We don't have a great selection of small and medium villages. Our city boards are overused and many not that convincing. We have few decent open terrain boards too.

- Theater-specific boards: Russian theme is especially lacking, so too is Italian and Korean terrain.

 

[sswann]

The local airfield here in Plymouth Michigan is 2,302 feet long and the other airfield I am familiar with is 3000 feet long.

or about 25-26 hexes long.

 

[Polar Bear Vortex]

Board 14 is one of my least used boards (as are most of the GI boards)…although my first edition boards 10 and 11 fry my eyes every time I consider using them.

 

[Old Noob]

They weren't called "Rogue" for nothing!

 

[DonWPetros]

Board 14 is one of my least used boards (as are most of the GI boards)…although my first edition boards 10 and 11 fry my eyes every time I consider using them.

You're right. Board 14 is the least used older board. Followed by Boards 13, 15, 9. (I did a study on how often all the geoboards are used).

 

[Robin Reeve]

Board 14 is rarely used because of the Runway.

 

[Polar Bear Vortex]

You're right. Board 14 is the least used older board. Followed by Boards 13, 15, 9. (I did a study on how often all the geoboards are used).

I always wondered what boards others used. Thanks.
What were the most popular? ( 2,3,4 would be my guess) use 13, 5 and other stream or Forest boards frequently in larger DYOs with mech units.I’ve amassed 6 board 5s over the years…(l became hooked on Geomorphics in my teens, what can I say?).

62,73, 74,75 can be used in almost any theatre for wilderness. We use them all to replace board 4 or 5 in early scenarios.

I should also say that the reissue of board 11 is a beauty and also subs for 4 in certain instances.

 

[DonWPetros]

I always wondered what boards others used. Thanks.
What were the most popular? ( 2,3,4 would be my guess)

You got it right.

Most Used in order:
4 (by far)
2
3
5
17
11
16
10 / 42

Special mention (considering they've not been out for nearly as long)

43
54 Bocage

No surprise for boards 2,3,4,5 (oldest). Board 4 is overused but wasn't really threatened by B44. We need more 'approach / layup' boards like 4.

 

[Polar Bear Vortex]

Has anyone had good results substituting newer boards in any of the early SL/CoI/CoD Scenarios?
I’m currently considering playing Road to Wiltz using some combination of these newer boards 42/50/62/64/86.

 

[von Marwitz]

Has anyone had good results substituting newer boards in any of the early SL/CoI/CoD Scenarios?
I’m currently considering playing Road to Wiltz using some combination of these newer boards 42/50/62/64/86.

I believe that most of the old Squad-Leader Scenarios have been transformed to ASL.
Part of this has probably not been the substitution of boards.

That said, if you want to subtitute boards, it is highly likely to have a significant impact on game balance in any case.

As such, if you are willing to put up with that, just use any boards you find fitting.

von Marwitz

 

[Vinnie]

I see no reason to redraw older boards to bring “new life” to existing scenarios. If they’ve been played to death by a player then the chances are that player has access to 1,000 other scenarios he can play. If a new player then he will not have played them to death.

 

[Polar Bear Vortex]

I don’t play competitively (I’ll give you the +or- 1 over a rule check any day), so my concern for balance is low (victory conditions or forces can be changed for balance ).

Why sub? Scenario SL7 rule 7A got me off on this foot in the 80s and I‘ve never looked back.

Sometimes, the desire is for more historical realism:
Breakout from Borisov, Sweep for Bordj Toum bridge, Ad Hoc at Beaurains…so many benefit from the newer boards.

Sometime, it’s because the forces are well matched and it poses a hypothetical question like: What if the forces in Hubes Pocket collided in a village? We commonly randomize a great number of variables including the weather, which has a profound impact on terrain and balance,

Our group (3, lol) have a pile of “open boards” as we call them, that we’ve agreed can be dropped in as a “board 4“
To simulate poor intelligence, attackers often pre commit to entry hexes prior to learning what board was drawn.
More Fog of War.

 

[von Marwitz]

I don’t play competitively (I’ll give you the +or- 1 over a rule check any day), so my concern for balance is low (victory conditions or forces can be changed for balance ).

Why sub? Scenario SL7 rule 7A got me off on this foot in the 80s and I‘ve never looked back.
View attachment 21693
Sometimes, the desire is for more historical realism:
Breakout from Borisov, Sweep for Bordj Toum bridge, Ad Hoc at Beaurains…so many benefit from the newer boards.

Sometime, it’s because the forces are well matched and it poses a hypothetical question like: What if the forces in Hubes Pocket collided in a village? We commonly randomize a great number of variables including the weather, which has a profound impact on terrain and balance,

Our group (3, lol) have a pile of “open boards” as we call them, that we’ve agreed can be dropped in as a “board 4“
To simulate poor intelligence, attackers often pre commit to entry hexes prior to learning what board was drawn.
More Fog of War.

If you want more realism with regard to terrain, then a HASL (historical ASL module) might be the thing for you. Many of these are very large in scope, but there are a few smaller ones which are easier to handle.

As soon as geo-boards get into the equation, things do get somewhat generic IMHO. Even if you do painstaking research to get the historical units right, the historical correctness will - of course - be affected by generic terrain. ASL remains a game, not a simulation, after all.

That said, this doesn't do any harm at all. 'Hill 621' is one of those classic scenarios which is not even based on a 'real' historical situation. IMHO, this does not really matter as long as an engagement as is covered in a scenario could realistically have happened. A little tweaking of the historical situation as 'design for effect' is more beneficial than harmful, I think. For a tense and exciting game, it is often more important, that both sides have balanced chances to win the scenario. Such balance was often not the case in 'real' historical engagements.

von Marwitz

 

[Polar Bear Vortex]

If you want more realism with regard to terrain, then a HASL (historical ASL module) might be the thing for you. Many of these are very large in scope, but there are a few smaller ones which are easier to handle.

As soon as geo-boards get into the equation, things do get somewhat generic IMHO. Even if you do painstaking research to get the historical units right, the historical correctness will - of course - be affected by generic terrain. ASL remains a game, not a simulation, after all.

That said, this doesn't do any harm at all. 'Hill 621' is one of those classic scenarios which is not even based on a 'real' historical situation. IMHO, this does not really matter as long as an engagement as is covered in a scenario could realistically have happened. A little tweaking of the historical situation as 'design for effect' is more beneficial than harmful, I think. For a tense and exciting game, it is often more important, that both sides have balanced chances to win the scenario. Such balance was often not the case in 'real' historical engagements.

von Marwitz

As an owner of Red Barracades ild concur re HASL. (The Commissar’s House!)
I was shocked to discover that Hill 621 wasn’t historic...and a great example where I could sub a board 4.
(successfully defending Hill 621 without artillery…priceless ).

I see that the game has evolved in many directions (theatres, VASL).
can you tell me if there are groupings by rule sets? I know several that never moved beyond GI, and some, like my self who stuck with COI
Did ASL (I own beyond valour) stay the same…or where any further significant overhauls of the rule system.

cheers

 

[von Marwitz]

As an owner of Red Barracades ild concur re HASL. (The Commissar’s House!)
I was shocked to discover that Hill 621 wasn’t historic...and a great example where I could sub a board 4.
(successfully defending Hill 621 without artillery…priceless ).

I see that the game has evolved in many directions (theatres, VASL).
can you tell me if there are groupings by rule sets? I know several that never moved beyond GI, and some, like my self who stuck with COI
Did ASL (I own beyond valour) stay the same…or where any further significant overhauls of the rule system.

cheers

You can't really compare SL and ASL. SL was the basis for ASL, of course, but basically, ASL is a different game with many fundamental different dynamics and more systematic rules.

If you are used to SL and want to switch to ASL, then one of your problems will be 'unlearning' SL, i.e. avoiding to inadvertedly apply SL rules to ASL.

The best way to learn ASL is to play people that know it.

von Marwitz