the geography of geoboards

[DonWPetros]

I look at and design geoboards and when I look at them, I try to think: 'where, geographically, is this board supposed to be? (ie. Western Europe, the Balkans, PTO jungle, etc.)'. It seems that they should all look somewhat realistic.
Some boards have a geographical look built in (ie. Bocage boards - good example), while many if not most others look ambiguous. I think we have too many ambiguous ones.
Some boards have a nice distribution of terrain (ie. open, congested), while others seem very jammed with terrain. I think boards should have greater balance.

I'd like to hear your thoughts?

 

[von Marwitz]

Honestly?

I have never tried to 'key' geo-boards to particular real geographic locations. For me, they are just generic landscape (although I am aware that some of the newest geo-boards try to depict some 'real' terrain).

Also, I don't believe that this does not really make sense. In general, I think that ASL terrain is a lot too much congested in many cases. The typical engagement range for AFV is a lot less than it was historically, as one striking example. In other cases, the ASL terrain is not congested enough. Dense Jungle or larger areas of Woods come to mind. For me, geo-boards cry out "generic" - compare the typical hill geo-board with the hills of KGP.

In that line, I don't understand why some players or designers are very much concerned whether it MUST be a PzKw IVH or PzKw IVJ to get it "right", while at the same time they do not lose a thought on the totally ahistorical terrain of geoboards for their action.

That said, personally I find nothing wrong with ASL terrain being generic or ahistorical.
It would not be much fun to attack through open boards which resemble DTO with maybe even less features. Nor would it be fun to trudge through three geo-boards completely filled with Dense Jungle (while the designer's notes already state, that "real" movement through Dense Jungle would be much slower than it is in the ASL world). It would be a horrid PITA to Minimum Move through three geo-boards of Dense Jungle, after all...

Bottom line:
Besides HASL maps, for me the ASL geo-boards are "design for effect" and generic, not attached to a particular real place or region.

von Marwitz

 

[Robin Reeve]

Boards 96 and 97 depict Carpiquet's airport and surroundings.
As geoboards are so easy to produce, I think we will see more "historical" ones.

Otherwise, I think some boards were designed to depict "typical" (even if generic) terrain.
I remember a discussion about Italian villages upon rather steep hills, which led to board 60.
Russian village terrain is also represented on some boards - with their small, wooden houses - as well as a "balka" valley.

 

[Fort]

I dunno, I think for the most part, ASL maps make for realistic distances for tank engagements.


"A2.1 ...Superimposed over the mapboard is a hexagonal grid used to measure movement/range to an abstracted scale of 40 meters per hex...."

Typical tank engagement ranges in World War II were unexpectedly short, with the majority of combat occurring between 150 and 400 yards (roughly 130–360 meters), (3-9 ASL hexes) often peaking around a median of 300 yards. While guns could engage beyond 1,500 yards, most battles occurred within 800 yards due to terrain constraints, poor visibility, and the need for high-accuracy hits.

Key details regarding WWII tank engagement ranges include:

• Median Range: In Northwest Europe, 50% of tank engagements occurred at less than 650 yards (approx. 600 meters).
• Terrain Variations: In close-terrain areas like Normandy or Italy, engagements were often under 300–400 yards. In open areas like Tunisia or the Eastern Front, engagements frequently reached 1,000–1,500+ yards.
• German vs. Allied Tactics: German tanks, such as the Tiger and Panther, often operated at longer ranges (1,500–2,000 meters) to utilize their superior gun optics and range. Conversely, Allied tanks (like the Sherman) often sought to close the distance to under 400 yards to improve accuracy and penetrate German armor.
• Maximum vs. Typical: While rare long-range hits (over 4,000 meters) were achieved, they were exceptions.
• Impact of Visibility: In dense, forested, or urban areas, fighting often occurred at point-blank range, sometimes under 20 meters.

 

[stuh42asl]

I look at and design geoboards and when I look at them, I try to think: 'where, geographically, is this board supposed to be? (ie. Western Europe, the Balkans, PTO jungle, etc.)'. It seems that they should all look somewhat realistic.
Some boards have a geographical look built in (ie. Bocage boards - good example), while many if not most others look ambiguous. I think we have too many ambiguous ones.
Some boards have a nice distribution of terrain (ie. open, congested), while others seem very jammed with terrain. I think boards should have greater balance.

I'd like to hear your thoughts?

Real life terrain is not balanced, design boards to reflect real terrain and real tactical problems.

 

[FrankH.]

I look at and design geoboards and when I look at them, I try to think: 'where, geographically, is this board supposed to be? (ie. Western Europe, the Balkans, PTO jungle, etc.)'. It seems that they should all look somewhat realistic.
Some boards have a geographical look built in (ie. Bocage boards - good example), while many if not most others look ambiguous. I think we have too many ambiguous ones.

I'd like to hear your thoughts?

I think you have asked some of these questions before.

The most ambiguous boards are the most versatile ones.

I do think needed are a few (at least two) geoboards with very little blocking terrain (perhaps just a small hamlet or two along a road network), but with gullies (maybe a ford or two over the gully), depressions, very little of level 1 hills, maybe a bit of a canal or a stream, and a scattering of grain and brush, etc. to cover the more open terrain found across the northern European plain stretching from the steppes of Russia through to the large river valleys of France, and a few other places. These boards would cover the approaches to more dense terrain and might give some response to the comment of Fort, above which I excerpt here:

"In... the Eastern Front, engagements frequently reached 1,000–1,500+ yards.

German vs. Allied Tactics: German tanks, such as the Tiger and Panther, often operated at longer ranges (1,500–2,000 meters) to utilize their superior gun optics and range.

A good open LOS at 1000 to 1500 meters means 25 to 37 hexes of mostly open space (with the odd hindrance). I don't see using desert terrain boards, as steppe terrain, very satisfactory for this, but mostly that is all we have as of yet.

The problem I see with this idea is people may complain about the lack or insufficiency of terrain - people want terrain!

 

[PresterJohn]

In ASL scenarios, the designers will compress time, forces are compressed, and alas space is often compressed too. Consider an important battle like Operation Epson and the start of the back and forth over Hill 112, a height with a greater area of about 10 square kilometers of open grain fields and a few wooded areas. To represent a portion of that terrain for an ASL scenario what boards would be used? Three boards could be used side by side to represent about a square kilometer. This three board layout is used for Scenario 104 Hill of Death and had two flat boards on either side and a level 2 hill board in the middle. So we have a kilometers long gently sloping feature compressed down to a steep rugged hill fight a few hundred meters across. I can only shrug and say you can make whatever geo-boards you want, but to achieve a decent true representation of important real terrain features, it can only be done with HASL maps. (Looking at those wonderful Zamoly maps.)

 

[von Marwitz]

I dunno, I think for the most part, ASL maps make for realistic distances for tank engagements.


"A2.1 ...Superimposed over the mapboard is a hexagonal grid used to measure movement/range to an abstracted scale of 40 meters per hex...."

Typical tank engagement ranges in World War II were unexpectedly short, with the majority of combat occurring between 150 and 400 yards (roughly 130–360 meters), (3-9 ASL hexes) often peaking around a median of 300 yards.

• Median Range: In Northwest Europe, 50% of tank engagements occurred at less than 650 yards (approx. 600 meters).
• Terrain Variations: In close-terrain areas like Normandy or Italy, engagements were often under 300–400 yards. In open areas like Tunisia or the Eastern Front, engagements frequently reached 1,000–1,500+ yards.

If that data is correct, then 50% of tank engagements in Northwest Europe occurred at more than 650 yards (approx. 600 meters). Certainly not in the body of Northwest Europe ASL scenarios. If you then take into account city/village terrain in Northwest Europe plus Normandy terrain (also Northwest Europe) with engagement ranges of often less than 300-400 yards, which all lowers the "average engagement range", you can conclude that outside of such terrain engagement ranges were longer.

Many more scenarios in ASL are set in regions of Northwest Europe do not have the dense Normandy/Italy landscape described than scenarios that do. For this majority of scenarios without dense landscape, ASL scenarios are still typically not beyond 3-9 hexes (roughly 130-360 meters), much less than beyond 650 yards (approx. 600 meters).

On top of that, very few Eastern Front scenarios in ASL represent the more open terrain with 1000-1500 yards engagement range.

So as a conclusion, outside dense terrain such as city, village, Normandy, the common engagement range of AFV in ASL scenarios in Northwest Europe and on the Eastern Front are very often too short.

That said:
I don't mind. Design for effect. If you would have "realistic" Northwest Europe landscape outside city, town, Normandy, or generally dense terrain, ASL would simply not work as well both from a practicality standpoint (much tablespace required) and from a rules mechanics standpoint (it takes squads a lot of turns to cover 1000 meters of Open Ground, for example).

von Marwitz

 

[Robin Reeve]

Playing on gigantic game surfaces would mean playing a larger scale than ASL encounters are about.
Battles where units fire at 30-50 hexes distance make infantry useless.
This is more about armour vs armour clashes – which certainly did occur.
I am personally not fond of amour-only scenarios.

But urban fighting, which is so often covered by ASL scenarios and campaigns, doesn't have armour firing at two kilometers distance.
Speaking of statistics, I read somewhere that the normal distance of engagement of armour in Europe was about 250 meters (6 hexes)... ASL does that quite well.

I would prefer purchase an operational level wargame than try to force ASL into a regimental level confrontation.
Now, many boards already have large swaths of open ground: board 4, 19 or 33 come to mind; a designer can simply declare that grain is out of season.
Not everything is Normandy like, btw. Boards 54 and 55 are, indeed, and that is the intention.
As said previously, some geoboards have expressly been required by designers, to depict some terrain configuration that the previous boards didn't cover.

So I would not jump to the conclusion, based on statistics, that ASL geoboards are that much away from real terrain.
They fit encounters that fit to its tactical level.

 

[Fort]

If that data is correct, then 50% of tank engagements in Northwest Europe occurred at more than 650 yards (approx. 600 meters). Certainly not in the body of Northwest Europe ASL scenarios. If you then take into account city/village terrain in Northwest Europe plus Normandy terrain (also Northwest Europe) with engagement ranges of often less than 300-400 yards, which all lowers the "average engagement range", you can conclude that outside of such terrain engagement ranges were longer.

Many more scenarios in ASL are set in regions of Northwest Europe do not have the dense Normandy/Italy landscape described than scenarios that do. For this majority of scenarios without dense landscape, ASL scenarios are still typically not beyond 3-9 hexes (roughly 130-360 meters), much less than beyond 650 yards (approx. 600 meters).

On top of that, very few Eastern Front scenarios in ASL represent the more open terrain with 1000-1500 yards engagement range.

So as a conclusion, outside dense terrain such as city, village, Normandy, the common engagement range of AFV in ASL scenarios in Northwest Europe and on the Eastern Front are very often too short.

That said:
I don't mind. Design for effect. If you would have "realistic" Northwest Europe landscape outside city, town, Normandy, or generally dense terrain, ASL would simply not work as well both from a practicality standpoint (much tablespace required) and from a rules mechanics standpoint (it takes squads a lot of turns to cover 1000 meters of Open Ground, for example).

von Marwitz

15 hexes is 600 ASL meters...half the length of an ASL board. Those distances are quite attainable in almost every geoboard.

G.

 

[Fort]

Playing on gigantic game surfaces would mean playing a larger scale than ASL encounters are about.
Battles where units fire at 30-50 hexes distance make infantry useless.
This is more about armour vs armour clashes – which certainly did occur.
I am personally not fond of amour-only scenarios.

But urban fighting, which is so often covered by ASL scenarios and campaigns, doesn't have armour firing at two kilometers distance.
Speaking of statistics, I read somewhere that the normal distance of engagement of armour in Europe was about 250 meters (6 hexes)... ASL does that quite well.

I would prefer purchase an operational level wargame than try to force ASL into a regimental level confrontation.
Now, many boards already have large swaths of open ground: board 4, 19 or 33 come to mind; a designer can simply declare that open ground is out of season.
Not everything is Normandy like, btw. Boards 54 and 55 are, indeed, and that is the intention.
As said previously, some geoboards have expressly been required by designers, to depict some terrain configuration that the previous boards didn't cover.

So I would not jump to the conclusion, based on statistics, that ASL geoboards are that much away from real terrain.
They fit encounters that fit to its tactical level.

I've now agreed with Robin twice in one week. I'm not sure, I'd bet satan felt a little chill on the wind.

 

[DonWPetros]

I think we have generally OK Western European terrain (though we lack the sort of open grainfields of the areas around Caen).
As I've said before, we continue to lack similarly good Eastern European, Russian and Ukrainian terrain. While some few boards might permit a somewhat open field end-to-end on standard geoboards such as B19, 69, 70, too few allow the kind of longer range fire that was prevalent on the Eastern front. And no, I don't agree that DTO boards aren't the answer here.
Too many boards still seem to be like paintball parks - obstacles, obstacles, obstacles - with little balance between obstacles and open ground.
Board design and execution should take the same sort of care (geographic and otherwise) as has been applied towards unit counters and rules. That hasn't happened (EXC HASL boards). I don't think we're quite there with our geoboards.

 

[DonWPetros]

Boards 96 and 97 depict Carpiquet's airport and surroundings.
I remember a discussion about Italian villages upon rather steep hills, which led to board 60.
Russian village terrain is also represented on some boards - with their small, wooden houses - as well as a "balka" valley.

Historically speaking:
Board 96 (Carpiquet) was designed 'historically', but not 97 wasn't, though close enough and more designed generically to fit lots of other actions.
Board 60 was designed to look like an Italian hill village. Some boards (48, 56, 57, 69, 70 only) were designed to accommodate East Front scenarios.

A number of boards do a fairly good job of doing Normandy. Same with DTO and PTO.
But when you add up all the 'historical' boards, a relatively small portion compared to all the other generic boards actually try to be based on more geographically accurate places (EU, Italy esp.).

 

[M.Koch]

As a scenario designer my approach is to depict the surrounding terrain as good as possible. Saying that almost all information about the terrain is from the source the scenario is inspired from (most of the time books). In rare cases you have the opportunity to see the landscape live, as it´s the case for the scenarios I did around Operation Varsity/ Plunder, since that happened very close to my place.
In my opinion there can´t be enough boards, even when we tend to reach a "play and forget" situation.
Saying that, until board 52 i had them memorized in my mind. Now ask me what board 78 looks like...or 17a/b... or u.

 

[Old Noob]

94 & 95 = on hold until "Polish Eagles", currently at 99.
100 should be a memorable design (as the # designation for it will be smaller).

 

[GeorgeBates]

100 should be a memorable design (as the # designation for it will be smaller)

Maybe a wrasslin' match should be held to commemorate the centennial board?

 

[kennethlindelli]

I always wished (but never to be fulfilled) making the HASL sets to have their map in geo board form. I don't like paper maps too much. always bubbling up. This would never be done, but a 60-year-old boy can dream.

 

[von Marwitz]

I always wished (but never to be fulfilled) making the HASL sets to have their map in geo board form. I don't like paper maps too much. always bubbling up. This would never be done, but a 60-year-old boy can dream.

Well, make your dreams come true (in a way), old boy!

There are many businesses that print custom playmats. Prices are not neglible but not forbidding either. If you loathe playing a CG on a paper map (or depressing it by plexiglass, which has drawbacks with regard to LOS checking and glare) you might consider this. Below is just one (of countless) examples of a website:

Custom playmats, Custom dice trays and Accessories - Playmats.eu

Non-slip rubber mats for battles, RPG's and board games. You can order any of our products personalized with your own imprint design, or in custom size - Playmats.eu

playmats.eu

So, basically, you could take the VASL map file, have it printed on a custom playmat.

von Marwitz

 

[pensatl1962]

I remember one of my Atlanta ASL friends had his HASL maps dry-mounted on foam board. I’ve done similar with large USGS topo maps that I later framed. With foam board you need to worry about warping. You might could use styrene sheets but that’s expensive or maybe 1/8” Masonite (hardboard). You can easily mount paper prints on Masonite - it’s done quite often for the backdrops on model railroads. Masonite is fairly cheap.

 

[GeorgeBates]

Masonite is fairly cheap

But yer gonna need a bigger shed out back to keep 'em all in!