(10-16-2021, 03:55 AM)plloyd1010 Wrote: Quote: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.
