PG-HQ Forums

I could see the elevation lines having an impact on LOS and the slopes on movement.

Oh boy, I think we are all making this very difficult.

(03-05-2014, 11:03 PM)vince hughes Wrote: [ -> ]Oh boy, I think we are all making this very difficult.

yeah, this is going to be an issue.

Well, unless slopes are defined as a new terrain feature then I suppose they would be ignored. I don't know if slopes are treated in 'Liberation 44' because I don't own it but it looks as if there is a similar issue with those maps. In the meantime the elevation lines should make it clear for LOS or limiting terrain. I wonder if the map designers actually place a hexagonal template over their art when they design maps. In the older maps it looks like they didn't but at least with these the elevation lines look clear enough and there is no question as to which hex is elevated.

Complicated? Well, ...not really.
Let me write down a simple two-pages demonstration

Quote:I suppose they would be ignored.

I think the point is rather why should they have to be? One can understand the need for occasional terrain modifications during specific scenarios; it is quite another thing to have permanent artwork that is always ignored.

I'm not arguing for an extreme functionalist approach, but as Alan said nicely, the default is that the board artwork conveys meaning in terms of game effects (via the TEC).

IMHO, the problem here is the need for a certain degree of abstraction whilst also retaining realism: the AK and DR maps err too far towards the former, whilst I believe these newest designs err too far towards the latter. For myself, the apotheosis of PG maps is Elsenborn Ridge.

I don't really think you can ultimately have it both ways with maps. Playablity should come before artwork though unless you are soley a collector. Even with the counters; except for armored units, they are going to be covered with a leader counter. Soon, those counters are going to get covered with moved/fired markers and/or disruption and demoralization markers; and then, the counters will themselves be covering up the map's art. I have no problem with the older maps. If I wanted sensational, three-dimensional, more realistic graphics then I wouldn't be playing two-dimensional boardgames in the first place.

Quote:I don't really think you can ultimately have it both ways with maps.

I disagree because I think ER and/or FoF did a reasonable job "both ways." And no one is arguing regarding a "sensational, three-dimensional" experience. All I'm suggesting, again in my opinion, is that the most recent maps have sacrificed playability for artwork. And I don't think the two necessarily are a "zero sum" option as evidenced by past work.

Btw, yes, counters do cover the map, but the point, again, is that I should be able to know what to "do" vis-a-vis terrain effects by looking at the map art when I move the counter onto that hex.

PS Thanks for voting in the poll.

No problem. It's always going to be something; whether with the general rules; scenario instructions or the maps. The only thing I can say to defend the AK and DR maps is that it's the North African; Libyan/Egyptian desert; you've got sand and you've got sandy and/or rocky hills. Sometimes terrain mods prompt you to pretend that a hill is a wadi, salt marsh or ocean hex but overall the terrain is kind of desolate and desert-like. However, with Tunisia I can see that new maps are needed for 'An Army at Dawn' after reading into that part of the North African theater.

I'm going to be boringly practical and simply count the added-in lines as the hill/elevation hexes. I will be treating the slopes (and in some cases escarpments) as merely art. If anything else does crop up from APL on this, I'll adjust accordingly if we are told so. It'll be a bloody surprise to me if they do have some effect I can tell you .. what a blooper that would be.