What is the contour interval on an HASL map?

Dr Zaius

Chief Defender of the Faith
Joined
May 1, 2001
Messages
8,902
Reaction score
408
Location
The Forbidden Zone
First name
Don
Country
llUnited States
I'm thinking it is around 20 meters/elevation change. That's pretty much the norm on a standard 1/50,000 scale topographic map, but ASL is a much smaller scale.

Does anyone know or does it differe from map to map?
 

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,917
Reaction score
1,480
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
Whew, good question. I can't remember where I read an article on this but I don't think there is any set amount of feet to a level. After all, a 'single'story' house is seldom as tall as a stand of trees or low hill yet they are all level one LOS obstacles. A building with two levels may represent a 4 or 5 story structure so that it may be as tall as level two level 'Pine Forest' or good size ridge.

That's my take on it anyway.
 
Last edited:

Dr Zaius

Chief Defender of the Faith
Joined
May 1, 2001
Messages
8,902
Reaction score
408
Location
The Forbidden Zone
First name
Don
Country
llUnited States
da priest said:
Vague recall out of the mists of time, varies from map to map. The variance is to give the "feel" of the battle.
That's what I thought. After reviewing some of the HASL modules I can see that this is more or less an abstraction (and an acceptable one). The 40 meter hex also seems to be just a tiny bit of an abstraction as well. In all fairness, the rulebook does say it is an "abstracted 40 meter hex," so that's fair.

Ok, thanks for the help.
 

Petros

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
109
Reaction score
2
Location
Vista California
Country
llUnited States
Don,
There is really no uniform process IMO in determining levels - it's one part eyeballing the historical photos :hmmm: and one part trying to make it playable.
 

Dr Zaius

Chief Defender of the Faith
Joined
May 1, 2001
Messages
8,902
Reaction score
408
Location
The Forbidden Zone
First name
Don
Country
llUnited States
Petros said:
Don,
There is really no uniform process IMO in determining levels - it's one part eyeballing the historical photos and one part trying to make it playable.
Okay, thanks Don.
 

WaterRabbit

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
27
Location
Somewhere
Country
llGreenland
Well, since I just boxed up my SL rulebook a couple of days ago, it's inconvient to check by I am fairly certain it was defined there.
 

Legion

Member
Joined
May 3, 2004
Messages
1,427
Reaction score
8
Location
Picton (NSW)
Country
llAustralia
I am sure that anyone who has been to Arhnem would be amazed at the small area the Brits held (all 600+ of them), and therefore how small the HASL maps area truely is.

And i intend to visit the Stoumont area this winter to see for myself the terrain that was fought over in KGP.

For my vote i would say that the maps are relativly abstracted to fit the maps and the 'game-play' factor
 

WaterRabbit

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
27
Location
Somewhere
Country
llGreenland
Look even without a rigorous definition, here is what we know:

1) The symbols on boards 1-4 contain the defining terrain;
2) Walls and hedges are 1/2 level obstacle to LOS and by B9.1 are 1 to 2 meters high;
3) A Single Story House is a level one obstacle;
4) A Two Story House is a level 1.5 obstacle;
5) Woods are a level one obstacle.

These set the lower bound for a level to be 4 meters and the upper bound to be 10 meters.

(1 m = 3.28 ft.)

I suppose that you could also make a argument based upon the topographical marks on the hills of board 2 and 3. By this a level would be 100 +/- 50 units. However, to assume these units are feet would put them out of scale (i.e. a level ~ 30 m) with the terrain symbol definitions given above. (unless one wants to argue for 30 m single story houses.)

This boundaries limit the amount of abstraction. If everything were scaled to walls a level would be 4 meters (or just over 13 ft.). So 10 m is about the maximum that you can push the topographic interval.
 

Dr Zaius

Chief Defender of the Faith
Joined
May 1, 2001
Messages
8,902
Reaction score
408
Location
The Forbidden Zone
First name
Don
Country
llUnited States
Well, I can tell you this: A very detailed examination of almost all of the HASL maps reveals that the "contours" are simply an abstraction just like Don said earlier. If these maps were actually done with a 10 meter contour interval, then they wouldn't be possible within the bounds of the ASL system. The contours would simply run together too often and some of the maps would be about 20-30 elevations high vs 6 or 7.

Geromorphic maps are one thing, but rendering real terrain within the bounds of ASL terrain limitations is an entirely different animal. I think the authors of the HASL maps we have now did a fantastic job abtracting this terrain to give the player an appropriate "feel" for the topography. They are not, nor can they be, litteral translations of actual topographic maps. While they are an abstraction, I do feel they are more than detailed enough.
 

AdrianE

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Messages
913
Reaction score
268
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
Country
llCanada
WaterRabbit

You are applying a reality argument to ASL. It just doesn't work.

If you want to see a game with real life LOS/elevations check out the TCS series by MMP/The Gamers. The LOS rules are more realistic but are a bigger pain. TCS also bores me but that's another story.

Adrian
 

Chas Argent

Play to the end.
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
6,319
Reaction score
793
Location
Catonsville, MD
Country
llUnited States
I have tried so hard to like TCS-many great subjects covered by the series-but, alas, I have come away bored every time myself...
 

pryoung

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
282
Reaction score
4
Location
Yakima, WA
Country
llUnited States
"Abstracted" is the word to remember with ASL. As far as elevations go, I think it's a case of going by what fits the terrain you wish to depict. Rather than the designer saying "here is a 80m hill, that makes it level-4" or something similar, I envision the design process being more like "this is an 80m hill, but it really wasn't that prominent over the battlefield, so make it a level 2 hill. On the other hand, this one over here was only 100m but had a dominant position looking over the battlefield and had a huge impact on restricting the enemy's mobility, so let's make that one a level 4 hill so it has clear lines of sight." Don't get too caught up in trying to come up with an exact formula to calculate these things. Same with things like firepower values.

Pete
 

WaterRabbit

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
27
Location
Somewhere
Country
llGreenland
AdrianE said:
WaterRabbit

You are applying a reality argument to ASL. It just doesn't work.

Adrian
You are confused by the difference between "reality argument" and a logical argument. My argument does not rely on how tall a house/tree/wall actually is in "reality".

Walls are defined by the rules as being 1-2 meters in height. Walls are defined by the rules to be 0.5 level in height. These are game definitions. Extrapolating the height of a level in meters is called math which is based upon logic. There is no "reality argument" here. Even if walls were not defined to 1-2 meters in height, it would not change the relative vertical scale since it is tied to a human scale. A 1:4 scale is also logical within the LOS rules. At 3:4 or 1:1 scale is not.

I agree with Don that many designers have abstracted the vertical levels on HASL maps. I am not making a judgment as to whether that is a valid approach or whether it deters from the playing of the scenario.

Designers can and do abstract much. Many abstract the game's time scale as well. However, if they stray to far from the game's internal scale, then they introduce a vertical/temporal exaggeration to their model of the battlefield. They need to be aware of that and determine how it affects their design. If they disagree with the game's distance and time scales, then it should be stated in their design.
 

WaterRabbit

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
27
Location
Somewhere
Country
llGreenland
AdrianE said:
WaterRabbit

Logical arguments don't apply to ASL either.
I disagree. Exceptions do not prove the rule. The ASLRB for the most part is based upon its own internally consistent logic. The exceptions are mainly due to the different styles of Greenwood, MacNamera, Fortenberry, and Cocke.

But in the absence of proof to the contrary, your statement is NA. Now if you would like to show me through the rules of the game system where my logic is in error, please do. But flat generalizations are not a counter-argument.

Fact: Hexes are 40m.
Fact: Walls and hedges are 1-2m.
Fact: Walls and hedges are 1/2 level.
Q.E.D: 1 level = 4m (strictly) to 10m (allowing intrepretation).

To counter this show me where it otherwise defines a level in the RB or demonstrate my logic is in error. So far you have given:

Assumption: Realitiy is NA to ASL
Assumption: Logic is NA to ASL

ASL is a model of a certain reality. Reality and logic give way when they colide with fun, gameplay, and the limitations of the model. To say they don't apply in general is a slippery slope. In my mind it is also kind of silly. Why bother with the bulk of the rules if they aren't intended to simulate a certain reality? Heck we could toss out most of the RB if we weren't concerned with modeling the specfics of WWII-style infantry/vehicle actions.

Reality and logic are the basis of the rules and are excepted when necessary (which is quite frequently).
 

alanp

Philosopher of ASL
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Messages
2,998
Reaction score
93
Location
Alki Point
Country
llUnited States
The rule book says "walls and hedges are 1/2-level obstacles to LOS", not "walls and hedges are 1/2 level". I see a difference here. While Waterrabbit's comments are interesting his Q.E.D. does not follow from the 'facts'

The comment, above, about the 80m hill not having a big effect on a particular engagement but a nearby 100m hill being key so a designer making one a level 2 and the other a level 4 seems closer to the 'facts' of level designation.

Alan
 

WaterRabbit

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
27
Location
Somewhere
Country
llGreenland
alanp said:
The rule book says "walls and hedges are 1/2-level obstacles to LOS", not "walls and hedges are 1/2 level". I see a difference here. While Waterrabbit's comments are interesting his Q.E.D. does not follow from the 'facts'

The comment, above, about the 80m hill not having a big effect on a particular engagement but a nearby 100m hill being key so a designer making one a level 2 and the other a level 4 seems closer to the 'facts' of level designation.

Alan
ASLRB said:
A6.2 OBSTACLES: Each terrain type is defined as to whether or not it presents an obstacle or Hindrance to LOS and , if and obstacle, the height of that obstacle. LOS extends into or out of obstacles, but not through them into hexes beyond the obstacles except in certain cases wherein the target/firer are at an elevation ≥ the height of the obstacle or are adjacent to a hexside obstacle.
The distinction you are trying to make is meaningless since the rulebook defines an “obstacle to LOS” equivalently with the elevation of the obstacle. This is really stretching to make a point. Your use of quotes around the word facts indicates that you dispute them. But then you continue on to equate interpretation with facts. :crosseye:

You can call a level 4 hill 40m or 400m for all I care. However, when the hexes hit the map, LOS is determined as if it were 40m or less. For scenarios that use cardboard and maps this doesn't matter much. However, if you start to play around with miniatures (i.e. chapter J) then this becomes much more important -- especially if you want to do "true" LOS with laser pointers and/or periscopes. You now have to relate the game's relative scale with an absolute scale -- an absolute scale that changes with the size of the hex in inches (.75” standard, 1 HASL”, 2.5 Deluxe”).

At 1/285th scale, humans are represented as being 6mm (1.7m). That makes a wall 7mm and a level 14mm (or 4m).

As I stated before, I’m not making a judgment about abstraction. Abstract away. Just remember that it is the real world terrain that is being skewed to fit the ASL world and not the other way around.

Earlier Don posted that a 20 m C.I. is common on a 1:50,000 scale map. ASL uses a 1:2100 scale map, a 20 m C.I. would be crazy big. [HASL = 1:1575; DASL = 1:630] (a 10 m C.I. is still fairly out there).
 
Top