Thread for ideas on KWASL's Steep Hills rules addition.

Swiftandsure

Robin Reeve
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
16,404
Reaction score
1,985
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Over 140 views and yet no replies?
One aspect of the steep hills rules is how it changes the mindset on how to approach a scenario. I am reading many books on regions that would have mountains and continue to come across comments that the area is not tank country or "no place for tanks".
So, now try to play a Cassino style scenario in ASL. Without steep hills, your tanks are free to try to ascend any hill. Steep hills prevents that from happening, thereby retaining more of the historical "flavor" of that scenario. CH!'s Stonne Heights comes to mind as well. In that CG (very good by the way) you can try to avoid going up the one mountain road by trying to negotiate your tanks through a forested hill. Not historical and not possible in real life. Add in steep hills and that possibility is eliminated. With steep hills the HASL now becomes more historically accurate.
The Stonne module prohibits vehicles moving up the forested hills and forces them follow the road - with the hex exiting the sunken road being problematic, as the French can concentrate all their AT defenses on it.
 
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
254
Reaction score
187
Location
Enfield, CT
Country
llUnited States
I am glad that you liked the rules. I created the concept when I realized that the existing ASL hill rules did not adequately model the effects that we wanted for the KW. A lot of my insights came from a visit not to Korea but rather to Israel, when I was looking at the terrain on the road that approaches Jerusalem from the west, and it was clear that ASL rules needed some additions for that kind of terrain.

I am currently designing scenarios that include KWASL's steep hills rules (W. 1.3). In addition to scenarios set in Korea the majority of these scenarios take place in WW2. The purpose of this thread is to discuss your views on these rules and if these should be expanded. I can use more feedback.
After six months of testing and playing nothing but Steep Hill scenarios I have really become fond of these rules. Your set up is different--no tanks can set up in steep hills unless it is on a road hex). Tactics are different. AFVs will not climb a hill and try to bypass freeze your opponent in a building on a hill that is not adjacent to a road hex. Steep hill hexes are concealment terrain. You assaualt move with a -1 DRM coming back at you.
Now, place caves in steep hill hexes and what type of game play does that bring forth.
So, this is the idea. I can use any feedback (yes, silly feedback is always accepted--I love a good laugh!) on this. Are there any other nuances you have uncovered through game play?
Thoughts? What is wrong or right about these rules?
Please, fire away.
 

Tuomo

Keeper of the Funk
Joined
Feb 10, 2003
Messages
2,947
Reaction score
1,513
Location
Rock Bottom
Country
llUnited States
Easy enough to SSR out though without affecting much other rules.
Or SSR in, if you really wanted/needed it. Because yeah, I'm just not buying that Korean hills had really that much undulation to warrant it.

No big deal. Just commenting on what seemed like an odd choice, to me.
 

Tooz

Senior Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
997
Reaction score
461
Location
Milwaukee
Country
llUnited States
I am glad that you liked the rules. I created the concept when I realized that the existing ASL hill rules did not adequately model the effects that we wanted for the KW. A lot of my insights came from a visit not to Korea but rather to Israel, when I was looking at the terrain on the road that approaches Jerusalem from the west, and it was clear that ASL rules needed some additions for that kind of terrain.
How would you handle sloped hills that are also considered steep? Just add the existing MF penalties?
 
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
254
Reaction score
187
Location
Enfield, CT
Country
llUnited States
The effect is realistic IMHO. Without concealment, it is too easy to dominate the hill from a good position on top.

I have only played one FW scenario with Steep Hills. I was not a fan of the rules - I didn't like that they were concealment terrain, even to units at a higher level. I do like them being pretty much impassable to vehicles.
 

Carln0130

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
4,748
Reaction score
845
Location
MA
Country
llUnited States
The effect is realistic IMHO. Without concealment, it is too easy to dominate the hill from a good position on top.
Kenneth, was it to simulate the many folds in the terrain that such terrain seems to produce, or was it more a game effect rationale?
 

Tooz

Senior Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
997
Reaction score
461
Location
Milwaukee
Country
llUnited States
There is a lot that can be done with these rules. So far, after 10+ scenario designs/testing the rules play out well. Adding slopes to some of the hills that are designated by SSR as steep can really change the look and "feel" of the fight. Even solitary hill hexes, once made steep, have an impact on play.
Ken, feel free to pm if you had ideas on expanding these rules. I will be taking these rules to the DTO and see how this plays out. Should be just fine--and fun!
 
Top