Well, I'm back from fighting the Evil Krasnovians
(interesting--12 years after the Soviet Union goes
tits up, our standard OPFOR is pidgin Russian for "Redlanders").
I had two notions for the Dirtside II terrain. First, IV lines
(Intervisibility lines). These are small folds not large enough to really
justify rating as a hill, but which provide places to move concealed. My
suggestion would be to represent by using pieces of yarn in the same color as
the majority of the terrain (green or sand, usually). Platoons adjacent to the
yarn can choose to be fully concealed, hull down, or turret down and count as
this vs. all unit on the same level or one level higher which trace line of
sight through the IV line.
Second is Spider Trails. These are either through forests or mountains (I'm
assuming that mountain terrain is not necessarily mountains as defined by
geographers but slopes too steep to drive on). They count as poor terrain for
every mobility type. However, the force or forces unfamilliar with the terrain
should have no idea where exactally any given
trail entrance leads--whether to a dead end, or
straight across, or through a series of switchbacks. The mechanism is left to
the imagination.
Anyway, I've had a bunch of other thoughts that I'll be sending in later.
Welcome back and thanks for the ideas!
[quoted original message omitted]
My group use single level hills that do not effect movement etc but block
lines of sight straight accross the table. These seem to work very well and
prevent games being dominated by long range fire. They also provide very
shallow slopes to allow less manouverable vehicles to move up levels they wold
normally take several moves to get up. Havnt tried this with DS2 yet(that
should arrive in the post tommorow).
> I had two notions for the Dirtside II terrain. First,
> Ian Murphy wrote:
> My group use single level hills that do not effect movement etc but
This and FMA's original post brings up a problem I've had with DSII movement
mechanics all along - how to distinguish between hills and mountains.
It seems a silly point, but with rules that simply state mountains allow
certain movement an hills certain movement, it becomes important to have a
standard - is that a big hill or a small mountain. Has anyone done
alternate movement/terrain rules to clarify this? In addition, I recall
the
issue of Hull down/Turret Down coming up a while back ,and can't
remember where the issue was discussed (a page or here), and how to determine
what a vehicle must do to be each.... anyone?
2B^2
He's back - let the rioting begin. <VBG>
Welcome back.
Gracias,
ADVERTISEMENT
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
I sometimes use a rule of thumb on terrain: Slopes of 30 degrees or less are
hills (or whatever standard geohex sope to
level 1 is). Slopes of 30.x-60 degrees are mountains. Slopes > 60 are
cliffs.
> From: "Bell, Brian K
> I sometimes use a rule of thumb on terrain:
Works for me.
2B^2
_________________________________________________________________
For terrain that I've built, I either paint the edges brown or flock them
dependent upon the slope) for "hills" or "slopes".
For mountains/cliffs, I use a gray color and lots of rocks at the
bottom.
Note that this for my previous 25mm wargames, I don't know how well it
would x-late into DSII.
My main point being that a convention can be used that let's the terrain
define itself by the way it's been built/painted.
> On Thu, 2002-03-07 at 08:08, Bell, Brian K (Contractor) wrote:
It
> seems a silly point, but with rules that simply state mountains allow
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com>
> --- Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote: