Scenario: #338--Fintel Ridge special woods rule

[jivemi]

Hi everybody. There's a "highly recommended" rule for size 4 and above vehicles in Weasel's Red Army scenario. It says:

"All size 4 and larger vehicles may only move through a single woods hex to represent the difficulty of large fighting vehicles moving through close terrain. Example: If there are two woods hexes in a row the vehicle may only enter one of them no matter how many turns pass, this represents being under the tree canopy, but not in the woods"

Does this mean that once such a vehicle enters a woods hex it cannot enter any more woods hexes the rest of the game? Or that it cannot enter two woods hexes in succession? Or that it can only enter woods hexes that are adjacent to non-woods hexes (thus skirting the edge of the woods)? Sorry to sound clueless but this rule seems either extremely prohibitive or ambiguous. Thanks.

[RightDeve]

this represents being under the tree canopy, but not in the woods

I have a firm and unshakeable faith that this can only mean "skirting" the woods. That is, you can only enter the wooded hexes that are adjacent to non wooded hexes, or to put it simply, you can only enter the outer shell of the forest, as these areas are considered un-wooded and only provides canopy from the actual forest, hence big vehicles are allowed there. But then again, it's just a faith......not empirically proven (I mean we need the actual scenario designer here).

Actually I'm wondering: what about a wooded area that consists only of two rows. Which side, then, is allowed for big vehicles?

[jivemi]

Agreed. It seems to mean "skirting" the woods by only moving into woods-edge hexes. And I've got the same quandary about a small woods (or "copse") with each woods hex being adjacent to a non-woods hex.

Flip a coin maybe, or is there some God in which to put one's faith? Anyway thanks and have a happy.

[Imp]

I would say logic is it can move from one woods hex to another if both woods hexes are adjacent to the same clear hex.
So it can skirt the edge but not penetrate deeper.

I tried in the past doing this by placing impassable terrain on woods hexes that don't touch clear terrain. Gives infantry very good cover though.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by Imp

I tried in the past doing this by placing impassable terrain on woods hexes that don't touch clear terrain. Gives infantry very good cover though.

Good idea *steals it*.

[jivemi]

Hi SP fans. Sorry to resurrect an old thread for nitpicking but noticed that the special woods rule has been left out of all three of Weasel's Red Army scenarios (now #182-184) in my v11.01-DL. Any particular reason for this?

Just wondering. Thanks.

[DRG]

Because it's unworkable

[jivemi]

Oops, my bad: Scenario #338--Fintel Ridge still has the special woods rule, as do Weasel's other Red Army scenarios numbered 336-40. My confusion was the result of another Fintel Ridge (same map, different starting units) among scenarios numbered 182-4 which don't include it. So the rule still exists, and Imp's brilliant interpretation of it remains the gold standard. Cheers.

[Imp]

Changed what I do for dense woods use mud instead or dragons teeth.
Infantry move costs
Mixed woods 3
Pines 4
Mixed wood DT 4
Mixed wood mud 5

If use DT can use engineers to clear a path through woods if desire, can risk your vehicles if use mud but chances are they will get stuck. Impassable gives to high a cover rating for my liking & used all MP.

You can make the map easy to read, place mud/DT with mixed woods on in summer then switch to autumn to place clear mixed woods making any paths where infantry can move 2 hexes through the woods easy to see.

Also use mud for cliffs steep gradients now, place on the slope infantry climbing are more vulnerable & I just dont drive on mud.

[DRG]

it is my belief that a map should use existing terrain rather than special rules. If you don't want vehicles moving through certain wooded areas there are ways, as detailed above, to achieve that rather than leaving it to player discretion with added " rules "