Hex scale in ASL

[Fred Campbell]

How flexible is the 40 meter hex scale in ASL? Would a slightly smaller scale (20-30 meters per hex) be considered acceptable in a HASL map? Has it been done before?

 

[jrv]

As far as I know the 40m scale has never been altered per se. ASL maps magnify certain terrain, e.g. streets. One could make the case that some buildings are magnified too, e.g. the Chateau on board 6. I am sure some liberties have been taken to get terrain to fit into the hexgrid.

Twenty meters is a large shift in my opinion, being half as big and a quarter the area. If you reduced the scale that much you would either have to increase ranges and MF/MP or accept that you were way out of scale that way. Also the effects of fire would be greatly reduced as you could target only a quarter of the area that you could hit before. Unit density, on the other hand, would be greatly increased relative to "real world". In an area that could accept only three squads without overstacking (i.e. in one hex) you could now fit twelve squads. Similarly if OBA were kept the same size in hexes (seven hexes for a FFE Concentration), it would attack one quarter of the area it attacks in regular ASL scale. At that scale you are either very close to or at the point where large HE attacks in the center of one hex will affect a second hex, e.g. with bombs, 150mm shells, etc.

JR

 

[Fred Campbell]

Thanks JRV. Your feedback was really well thought out. Perhaps fudging the terrain a bit to fit the needs of the hex grid is a better solution to (the admittedly unspecified) problem I'm trying to solve.

 

[xenovin]

Holding to the 40 meter hex is more important for HASL maps. geoboards are more abstract thus more "fudgy" trying to capture the essence of that location as detail is harder to achieve due to limitations of Board size.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

jrv has put it quite well the problems that would ensue by changing the scale. I'm inclined to treat the scale a tad more flexible. For example you find a map of a village or feature you wish to do a scenario about. If the real building layout would better suit a 36m or 32m hex grid, then in such a case a bit of tinkering with the scale might fly. Reducing to 20m though would break too many assumptions that ASL makes.

Contour level and building level heights are unstated and are quite flexible, though something around 10m is often suggested. The important thing about heights is relative heights, eg building vs hill. If your hills are fairly low and flat then maybe your village should have multi level buildings while the same village nestled in high hills would better be portrayed as single level.

 

[Fred Campbell]

jrv has put it quite well the problems that would ensue by changing the scale. I'm inclined to treat the scale a tad more flexible. For example you find a map of a village or feature you wish to do a scenario about. If the real building layout would better suit a 36m or 32m hex grid, then in such a case a bit of tinkering with the scale might fly. Reducing to 20m though would break too many assumptions that ASL makes.

Contour level and building level heights are unstated and are quite flexible, though something around 10m is often suggested. The important thing about heights is relative heights, eg building vs hill. If your hills are fairly low and flat then maybe your village should have multi level buildings while the same village nestled in high hills would better be portrayed as single level.

Thanks for the excellent info!

 

[Fred Campbell]

Holding to the 40 meter hex is more important for HASL maps. geoboards are more abstract thus more "fudgy" trying to capture the essence of that location as detail is harder to achieve due to limitations of Board size.

Ironically its a historical map I'm thinking about that would occupy an area that might not lend itself well to 40 meter hexes in ASL, because the 2 sides fought from opposing trenches that were closer than 40 meters from one another (i.e., the 2 trenches and their occupying combatants would be in the same hex, but not in close combat). I was thinking this could be one of those "design for effect" v. strict historical (or in this case, geographical) issues that requires some fudging, perhaps.

 

[jrv]

Just because two entities are closer than 40m does not mean they are in the same hex. Units that are on the same hexside (e.g. bypassing) are at very close range, so close that two vehicles can't be in bypass on the same hexside, but they can still be in different hexes. Hexes are just convenient game mechanisms for laying out rules. They are not historical facts. You could locate friendly and enemy lines in adjacent hexes even though they were closer than 40m apart. Use the game system as a paintbrush to convey your concept of the historical situation. You can smudge, stipple and smear the paint as long as it conveys the right impression. Don't think of it as needing to be a photograph.

The real problem you will have in your case is that trenches in adjacent hexes will automatically connect, and that is probably not what you want.

JR

 

[zgrose]

What did this combatants DO while they were hunkered down so close to each other? I'd imagine they were close enough to toss grenades at each so maybe they *were* actually in close combat. If they were just hanging out, maybe that's just the time between scenarios? Nothing wrong with starting a scenario in CC.

 

[Fred Campbell]

Just because two entities are closer than 40m does not mean they are in the same hex. Units that are on the same hexside (e.g. bypassing) are at very close range, so close that two vehicles can't be in bypass on the same hexside, but they can still be in different hexes. Hexes are just convenient game mechanisms for laying out rules. They are not historical facts. You could locate friendly and enemy lines in adjacent hexes even though they were closer than 40m apart. Use the game system as a paintbrush to convey your concept of the historical situation. You can smudge, stipple and smear the paint as long as it conveys the right impression. Don't think of it as needing to be a photograph.

The real problem you will have in your case is that trenches in adjacent hexes will automatically connect, and that is probably not what you want.

JR

That is why I was interested in altering scale. I was assuming a need to have an open ground hex between 2 trench hexes -- meaning there would be a 40 meter gap even assuming the hexes are on the bedside -- and the real geography appeared to have insufficient room for the 3 contemplated hexes. Perhaps zgrose is right -- they could just be in close combat.

 

[zgrose]

In case it isn't totally obvious, most streets aren't 40m wide either. So if the effect you want is two sides shooting at each other from opposing trench lines, you'll have to use 3 hexes. This is analogous to two sides shooting at each other across a road, also a 3 hex affair (usually).

 

[jrv]

That is why I was interested in altering scale. I was assuming a need to have an open ground hex between 2 trench hexes -- meaning there would be a 40 meter gap even assuming the hexes are on the bedside -- and the real geography appeared to have insufficient room for the 3 contemplated hexes. Perhaps zgrose is right -- they could just be in close combat.

If you consider most roads in towns, they are not 40m wide, yet this is how the maps show them. Similarly you could leave an empty hex between the two trenches, actual geography be blasted. Or you could come up with an SSR saying something like, "trenches in column R are not connected to trenches in column S." But fire between the two would be PBF and units could Advance from one trench to the other in one APh, which may or may not be correct. Or you could start them in CC. It all depends on how you want the scenario to flow.

JR