Slopes and Movement

[Hugmenot]

Peter, I stated the way I played when developing scenarios. I took the development job seriously and read the rules many time and stuck to my interpretation of the RAW when developing scenarios. 

As I said in a latter post, I did not develop Fall of France. Having said that, all FoF boards except for Board 30 each have between 0 to 3 town hexes connected to a lower level by road. Board 30 is used in the scenario Blackcloud6 is playing and its orientation will cause the Germans to lose a little time. By a little, less than one turn's worth in my opinion. The scenario is 18 turn long so Fred may need to push a little faster with the Germans.

It's funny to me because requiring the attacker to push a little faster is one of the things I focused on when developing scenarios. It was rare that I added turns to a proposed scenario (maybe 5% of the time) but I cut a designer's proposed game length many times (over 50% of the scenarios submitted in some cases) and sometimes cut them by as much as 20%. I wanted the attacker to feel time was also an enemy. Not enough of an enemy so he could not reform and attack again, but enough of an enemy to eliminate the slow, methodical, very low risk option that can guarantee a victory in some of the old scenarios. Maybe not an entirely realist position but I felt that imposing a tempo made for better scenarios.

As to my rules interpretations: I cannot guarantee I interpreted all rules the way John Stafford intended (and I am not sure he reviewed every detail of the rules while writing 4th edition because of the time crunch he was under). But I wrote to John on a few occasions when I saw inconsistencies or needed clarifications.

[Blackcloud6]

Peter: 

Let's assume that the rise of terrain for PG hill starts in the hex before the hex with the contour line and ends in the hex with the contour line and covers the entire distance of the two hexes, thus 400 meters.  Thus the rise is a 5% slope.  On a road on flat ground it takes a truck travelling 30 mph, 30 seconds to traverse the 400 meters (calculated at Speed Distance Time Calculator).  So assuming a laden truck will double its time traversing a 5% slope (although I would think the driver could simply accelerate), it would take a minute.  In a 15 minute turn the notional truck could traverse 30 such hexes which is certainly greater than the 16 hexes a truck with 8 MF can do in a turn.  (This actually then jives with strategic movement and thus the normal movement rate was likely slowed down for "tactical" reasons such as moving slower and more cautiously when near the enemy).  So, the 8 MF is taking into account many variables that could slow down a truck and we PG battalion commanders are above that resolution of the game.

Now if a scenario or module has extreme terrain, such as long mountain roads such as what you live near etc.  The module/scenario designer should include special rules to compensate for such terrain.  However, the general rule does not need such compensation becasue the extremes should not drive a rule

However, again, I reiterate, hopefully a bit more clearly this time, that the reality argument is immaterial to the rules as written.  And the rules are quite clear: 

To obtain the movement benefit of roads, movement must follow the road across a hex side containing the road, not just into or out of a road hex. Units moving along a road (including bridges) pay the road movement cost on the TEC, not the cost of the terrain in the hex.

Slope is a terrain, it is listed on the TEC distinctly as a "terrain type."  Thus, IAW Rule 5.2, the +2 for Motorized movement on slope and +1 Mechanized moment are ignored when calculating movement costs when moving along the road.  There is no other way to see it.  And reality arguments and other rules that don't explicitly address 5.2 do not matter, nor influence and thus do not pertain to Rule 5.2.

[Blackcloud6]

It's funny to me because requiring the attacker to push a little faster is one of the things I focused on when developing scenarios. It was rare that I added turns to a proposed scenario (maybe 5% of the time) but I cut a designer's proposed game length many times (over 50% of the scenarios submitted in some cases) and sometimes cut them by as much as 20%. I wanted the attacker to feel time was also an enemy. Not enough of an enemy so he could not reform and attack again, but enough of an enemy to eliminate the slow, methodical, very low risk option that can guarantee a victory in some of the old scenarios. Maybe not an entirely realist position but I felt that imposing a tempo made for better scenarios.

And this is what made PG a much better game: putting pressure on the attacker to 'get 'er done."

[Blackcloud6]

Board 30 is used in the scenario Blackcloud6 is playing and its orientation will cause the Germans to lose a little time. By a little, less than one turn's worth in my opinion. The scenario is 18 turn long so Fred may need to push a little faster with the Germans.

 
And press the Germans did do.  The slope/town penalty does make the German job a bit more difficult in the scenario and this is a good thing.  It also make such towns as great places for defending units, especially cavalry , motorcycle platoons and armored cars from which to delay.

One FB. it was mentioned that one reason it could be for towns to bear one MF cost and thus by not being a road the slope cost is also paid is that the town will have debris, narrow streets etc.  I can wrap my head around that.  Also, since most movement in PG is near the enemy, and thus contact is possible, units might be a bit more deliberate when moving though towns instead of just zipping through them.  And if one wants to replicate moving through cleared towns with MPs waving the convoys through, one can evoke Strategic Movement by design or agree to use this optional rules.  Therefore, I think PG does what it does so well in many cases: provide simple rules to cover as many tactical situation as possible.  And when doing such, some things, some details, have to be left out.

[plloyd1010]

I would say the rule is not clear, the consensus is clear. I do question the motivation for those on the consensus side.

Let's assume that the aforementioned truck is going 8 miles per hour, as in the game speed. As in moving 16 hexes on a level road, which is 3.2 km per turn, which is 12.km per hour, which is just over 8 mph. Completely useless data whether, by game calculation or an assumed starting point. The real question is does a vehicle lose energy, and thus use time to move uphill. Physics says this is true. If we assume that the slope begins 1 hex outward, despite being constrained to individual hexes, how much less energy is required over 2 hexes rather than one. Should the truck then have movement cost on the hex before the slope? Obviously not, hex grid regulation requires weird rules or constraint to the hex.

Daniel: I do not believe, and certainly did not intend, a suggestion of frivolity in your designs. My suggestion was that, despite being closer to APL than the majority of us, you are not Brian Kipple, Doug McNair or John Stafford. Dr. Mike, who's game it is now, has not chosen a replacement, nor has taken the responsibility. He pushed toward consensus when definition was requested.

[plloyd1010]

On a more general note: When a consensus is reached, or even a personal interpretation, as not should be made in rules. I use Foxit Reader for pdf files. It allows comments in callout boxes to added to documents. I think Adobe might do this too. The notes help long after the relevant thread has passed.

[Blackcloud6]

I do question the motivation for those on the consensus side.

  Could you please explain that statement so I don't get the wrong impression?

[plloyd1010]

Everyone likes stuff to go faster, especially their own things. I suspect the desire to go faster in the game may be clouding rational consideration. In other words, a desire for an outcome.

What did you think it could be?

[plloyd1010]

I also think the +1/+2 add is excessive for being on a road. But that's a side track.

[Blackcloud6]

Everyone likes stuff to go faster, especially their own things. I suspect the desire to go faster in the game may be clouding rational consideration. In other words, a desire for an outcome.

What did you think it could be?

That, or worse: that I was trying to gain an advantage in current play.  Both are far from the truth.  "Questioning" one's motives implies, to me at least, contemptable motivations on the part of person being questioned.  Frankly, and bluntly, I don't take kindly to that, especially over a game.  Now I'm not angry over this, but, yes, questioning my motives will move me towards that direction and before that happens I will simply cease to participate here.   And if it sours me so much, I'll dump PG and move on to something else.  There's not enough time left in my life to be mad about games, games discussion and there are plenty of other games out there I can focus my energy on. (I've actually walked back from ASL somewhat because some ASLers are simply childish).  This is all said to be clear on how to discuss these matters and maintain friendly relationships.  That said, i appreciate everything you and others have done for the game.

My motivation is to discern how the game is designed to be played.  It is not to gain an advantage in the current scenario play, not to whicker the game to be played the way I want it to be played.   I want to know how the game is intended to be played. The difference in the two interpretations is significant and can have a major impact on some scenarios.  So this needs to be figured out and put to rest, especially since VASSAL play is being promoted.

Frankly, slowing things down, to me is more realistic.  Combat actually happens slower than most people realize, because, well, doing things too quickly can get you killed.  Wargames tend to have a faster tempo, and higher casualties, than real actions do.    The flip side, is slowing too much, the game becomes too deliberate, sluggish, and boring.

That said, we can only go by the rules as written and it is very explicit in 5.2 that terrain cost is not counted when using road movement and that on the TEC slope is a terrain feature; it even says so on the notes portion of the TEC "a slope is elevated terrain..."    If the notes also said, "the slope cost is also added to units using road movement," I would be perfectly happy with that.  But it doesn't and adding it without it being explicit, is making a house rule.

You mentioned before in another post that you feel that the notion I mentioned of "concentrating on what the rules allow," implies that  one can fill in the holes if something is not mentioned.  In ASL and also by what I meant, it really means the opposite: you can only do what the rules explicitly tell you you can do; if it is not in the rules, then cannot do it.  And this case is the reason why such a concept exists.  There is no way to interpret the slope cost to be added to even road movement unless you add something that is not in 5.2 nor in the slope nor road lines on the TEC.

This concept of explicitness also puts the stake through the heart of endless reality arguments in which there are many different interpretations of how something should occur, that frankly very few gamers have even remotely experienced.