Had a discussion come up in a game this afternoon about spotting units in limited terrain (i.e. a FIELD to be exact). Usually, they can only be spotted if the spotting unit is within 3 hexes from it. However, what happens if the spotting unit is at an elevation of 20-feet (i.e. on top of a hill)? Normally, spotting units get a +6-hex increase in their spotting range (unless there are weather and/or night issues). However, do they also get an increased range to spot units in limited terrain. My gaming buddy and I came to a consensus that limited terrain is limited terrain even if being spotted from elevation (i.e., both cases would have to follow under the 3 hex limit to being able to spot).
What does everyone else think about this situation? Would you handle all limited terrain spotting situations equivalent (i.e., regardless of spotting unit elevation)?
In real world terms, you can see the copse of trees from even further away, but you certainly can't see
into them any better just because you're up high.
.... and THAT makes sense.
GG
(04-20-2024, 11:56 AM)Shad Wrote: [ -> ]In real world terms, you can see the copse of trees from even further away, but you certainly can't see into them any better just because you're up high.
Now how about making things muddy.
If trees are involved, woods for example, being higher would be a disadvantage because the the canopy gets in the way.
If it's about buildings. Looking obliquely down into the town or village, it looks about the same as looking from the same elevation.
If looking into a field, being higher would likely be use full as one can look into the field better from above.
So in case you want different types of limiting terrain, that's where I would start. I can think of making things complicated.
(04-23-2024, 11:49 AM)plloyd1010 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-20-2024, 11:56 AM)Shad Wrote: [ -> ]In real world terms, you can see the copse of trees from even further away, but you certainly can't see into them any better just because you're up high.
Now how about making things muddy.
If trees are involved, woods for example, being higher would be a disadvantage because the the canopy gets in the way.
If it's about buildings. Looking obliquely down into the town or village, it looks about the same as looking from the same elevation.
If looking into a field, being higher would likely be use full as one can look into the field better from above.
So in case you want different types of limiting terrain, that's where I would start. I can think of making things complicated.
Agreed. Lol
I tend to overcomplicate things whenever I can also. I think this is how our thought process went also. Then ...... we settled on "limiting terrain was limiting terrain" and moved on with the game. I guess I rationalize any weirdness like this as a "foginess of war" issue and hope it all comes out in the end of a game when these things average out for both side. Heck, if I wanted a stupid level of rules granularity, I'd be playing ASL instead of PzG. Lol
.....and there you have it!
GG
(04-23-2024, 11:49 AM)plloyd1010 Wrote: [ -> ]If looking into a field, being higher would likely be use full as one can look into the field better from above.
/pushes glasses up nose
ACTUALLY,
Assuming your field is 500 flat meters away, the wheat is a meter tall, and my eyeballs 2 meters above the ground, the angle formed by my gaze is 0.115°
Give me a 20 meter observation platform in the same position and the angle formed by my gaze is now 2.405° .
In other words, you're still not seeing anything in the wheat mate
https://www.calculator.net/right-triangl...lator.html
NOW, if I was ONE KILOMETER high and looking at a wheat field 500 meters away then my gaze angle would be 63.458° which would be enough to see something beyond the wheat wall between me and whoever is hiding in there.
But that would be silly!
....and there you have it mathematically sorted out!
GG