Slaughter at Ponri

[GeorgeBates]

So about the size of a womp rat, right? I hear they're not much bigger than two meters...

 

[JR Brackin]

I like the idea of the map dots if for no other reason than to allow persons who would want to try to play it more historically that option.

 

[Honza]

I like the idea of the map dots if for no other reason than to allow persons who would want to try to play it more historically that option.

It does seem a good idea. But the impression I get is that the designers have cut back on the amount of fortifications on map and so there are probably less fortifications in the CG then there were in real life. Historically the area was awash with trenches, wire and mines (I believe) but this has been reduced in the CG for playabilities sake.
Playing the CG with historically placed fortifications would alter the balance.

 

[Justiciar]

It does seem a good idea. But the impression I get is that the designers have cut back on the amount of fortifications on map and so there are probably less fortifications in the CG then there were in real life. Historically the area was awash with trenches, wire and mines (I believe) but this has been reduced in the CG for playabilities sake.
Playing the CG with historically placed fortifications would alter the balance.

Honza you missed the point completely.

It is not what the designers are doing relative to how they are managing the battle and its fortifications.

It is about having a means from the designers, like small red center dots, to show where the trench works existed in reality, regards of whether these are used in any particular scenario or CG to not. (BTW: I am aware of how extensive they were as I helped to proof Martin Nevshemal's book.)

 

[Justiciar]

Or make a journal article with nice maps and leave the game board alone

Not when they could have easily accounted for such the first time around. Plus transferring the journal data to the make then would rely on my time putting little red dots in the hexes, when that could easily have been on the original production side of the house, using the remaining 5% of time/effort still required (see up stream).

 

[Justiciar]

Could the map still not have a small symbol (EX red hex center dot, normal size) to indicate where historically a tench was? Thus giving a nod to those in the 'on map camp' for reasons they noted above.
Andy

Interesting idea for sure.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the nod. It would be great for your project if something like this could be worked in. It steps up the value a whole notch and a half.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

If the historical "at start" trench system is not going to be on the map then the idea of either a coloured dot on map or a reduced rules page sized diagram of the historical trench layout is an excellent idea. It will involve a fair bit of work but would satisfy me as history nerd.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Or make a journal article with nice maps and leave the game board alone

+1. +2 in fact.

 

[DWPetros]

As a point - the apparent trenches noticed in the aerial photos of Ponyri were located around the periphery of the mapboard and not very close to the town where the majority of the action takes place. So, the impact on the CG that these Trenches will have on the CG would be minimal. I suspect many of these trenches were AT trenches for what its worth. But these weren't the reasons for not including them (the reasons were mentioned above). Using red dots or overlays to show where they were located are interesting ideas for those guys who want to see them. I don't think it matters on play, one way or the other.

Happily, other kinds of fortifications (Wire, Pillboxes, etc.) were also likely to have been placed ahead of the attack by the Russians, but aren't apparent in the photos.

 

[Yuri0352]

If using chits for OBA you do need an opaque container! NOTE ALSO: What seems to likely be a fan at the top of the picture to help blow counters around.

Perhaps the soda can and the fan are being playtested as Random Events Generators to potentially replace the sniper counters which a few people seem to have a problem with.

 

[Bob Miller]

New topic maybe. Will the AT Trench / Ditch rules stay the same as in the rulebook or will there be some kind of SSR on them for this HASL? The rulebook as printed seems confused as it refers to AT Trenches as ditches or obstacles to hinder vehicle movement. Both a big hole and concrete dragon's teeth (west wall) would fit this description but are kinda different in reality. I always though AT Trenches should act more like a sunken road than a normal trench.

 

[DWPetros]

New topic maybe. Will the AT Trench / Ditch rules stay the same as in the rulebook or will there be some kind of SSR on them for this HASL?

No new SSR on them - there will be both AT Ditches and Trenches.

 

[Justiciar]

No new SSR on them - there will be both AT Ditches and Trenches.

Not related to the OP theme of 'sunken road' but rather an innate flaw in AT-Ditches being treated as trenches unless noted otherwise. This is serious. As a result of ASLRB, an AT-Ditch can be bypassed along a hex side to woods and/or building. That should be NA...the AT Ditch effect for Bypass should be treated as the same as a Roadblock...where the restriction for bypass ties into the "obstacle".

This is the fatal flaw of AT-Ditches. You should consult with Perry on this!

 

[stuh42asl]

After reading several Ponyri ref books, I was disappointed that the areas to the east and west of Ponyri are not really included. A lot of the events in Ponyri were influenced by the battles close to the village.

 

[DWPetros]

After reading several Ponyri ref books, I was disappointed that the areas to the east and west of Ponyri are not really included. A lot of the events in Ponyri were influenced by the battles close to the village.

There's just so much territory that you can cover in a HASL...

 

[GeorgeBates]

After reading several Ponyri ref books, I was disappointed that the areas to the east and west of Ponyri are not really included. A lot of the events in Ponyri were influenced by the battles close to the village.

What, you want the map to be BIGGER?

 

[stuh42asl]

Hey just sayin...........would have been a good idea. And the trench lines should be on the map.........the aerial photos do show the established trench lines. So the German tactics were set due to the known trench lines and wire. I have the photo book with all the day to day events.

 

[Gunner Scott]

Hi ya-

Not to knock Petes design, but his map is slavishly a dedicated simulation of the battle, which is ok I guess if your designing an operational wargame but with ASL, I think taking a few artistic liberties never hurts either. With my version map posted earlier, I went off the Osprey picture of the battle posted below because I want a fun CG where bothsides are doing something as well as not making one side feel like if they do not accomplish x amount of doing this or that they will lose. I know the osprey picture is not super exacting accurate, but nor was the Red Barricades map, but if you want a CG/ HASL that will be played by ALL not just accountants and rocket scientists, you have to compromise and strike a balance for all not a few. If your HASL is an exacting simulation of the battle, do not expect it to be played much, most people do not want to play HASL's that are very chrome heavy and / or on maps that look like they will not be much fun to play on. Give people a fun and rewarding HASL that is not a pain in the balls to play and it will be popular.

Scott

Hey just sayin...........would have been a good idea. And the trench lines should be on the map.........the aerial photos do show the established trench lines. So the German tactics were set due to the known trench lines and wire. I have the photo book with all the day to day events.

 

[Mister T]

I think one can disconnect the two concepts. One can be uncompromising about map accuracy yet making sure the CG/scenarios is/are playable.

 

[Jazz]

I think one can disconnect the two concepts. One can be uncompromising about map accuracy yet making sure the CG/scenarios is/are playable.

It is a challenge that is not always successfully met.