MikeMarchant_ssl -> RE: Problem with 1 Tank per Hex (3/13/2016 11:46:30 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: idjester quote:
ORIGINAL: Gerry In the first example a tank with reliability problems immobilized on the first start. Notice there is no place for the other ones to move to! Second example not quite so bad as I can move around the OOC tank. Please consider allowing tanks to drive through a hex containing another tank. I don't want two tanks per hex, just to drive through. I don't mind losing in games but this restriction is taking away a lot of the fun. Second example in next post. Gerry I do get your point but a D2 map can look deceiving when you compare that to reality. There isn't 1000 meters of free space between those building and we sometime forget the realities of war when looking at a D2 map. Hardly even did a tank or vehicle pass another one when they were moving unless they were in open landscape. Just ask the British soldiers at Arnhem about this. They were told their relief force was coming from just miles away and would be there shortly but these reinforcements were attacked by a few German soldiers, which blew up some of the lead tanks. Since they were traveling down a single lane road these units ground to a halt. They could go nowhere for days until they removed the tanks that were in front. 4 miles of vehicles stacked up behind a few broken down tanks. The reality of this situation is that you can’t just drive around a vehicle because one broke down in front of you. There normally isn’t the space, there isn’t the maneuverability, and the time and effort to undertake this just wasn’t feasible. As mentioned above we don’t want to get into a situation where by-pass movement is the way to go because of the logistics of worrying about hexspine movement, broken units in by-pass movement, and LOS with a unit in by-pass. It boils down to need verses want. Maybe this will get changed in a future update to TOTH if Peter thinks it is important but I just wanted to give a different perspective on the situation which we can’t see when we are looking at a 2D map. idjester [image]local://upfiles/40603/9D26033837EA4A55B4C5E0E3FCCBC7A8.jpg[/image] You're right to say that there are a lot of situations where an AFV wouldn't be able to pass another. A narrow road with boggy ground to either side, where the AFVs would simply get stuck (as at Arnhem) is a good example. A narrow street in Stalingrad might be another, or crossing a rail bridge over the Rhine. But these are largely the exceptions. The vast majority of hexes on most TotH boards would allow such passing of one AFV by another. I realise that this poses a problem for Peter, in how to be able to model both situations. Allowing AFVs in all hexes to be able to pass one another restricts those scenarios where the inability to do that adds to the tactical interest of the scenario and makes the scenario more historically accurate, and that is clearly undesirable. Denying AFVs the ability to pass each other in all hexes clearly hampers the tactical interest and historical accuracy of other scenarios, which is clearly undesirable. The alternative, to attach to each hex a property that defines whether AFVs can pass in it or not requires more work from Peter, and although this might be the most desirable solution for us players, for Peter it's a decision of priorities. The time spent on this is time not spent on something else. Best Wishes Mike
|
|
|
|