Escarpments question

[marjur]

I've got a question about escarpments.

Which side is higher A or B. I can never figure that out...

[Panama]

I've always thought the solid line represented the top and the pointy lines pointed down to the bottom. I could be wrong. I'm old you know.

I can see how it might be confusing.

[morganbj]

Well, which would be higher? The hex next to the sea, or the hex inland?

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan
Well, which would be higher? The hex next to the sea, or the hex inland?

I always thought that the higher hexes were those next to the sea. But I could be wrong. I really have no proof either way.

[marjur]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan
Well, which would be higher? The hex next to the sea, or the hex inland?

I always thought that the higher hexes were those next to the sea. But I could be wrong. I really have no proof either way.

My initial understanding was just like yours, i.e. I was under the impression that the small pointy lines represented the top, and the thick lines - the base, but after what Panama wrote I'm not so sure any more...[:D] Actually, what he wrote could make sense - the solid line might represent the edge of the slope and this would mean that the area near the cost would actually be lower...

[Panama]

13.9.7 Escarpments
Since only Mountain units can move across Major Escarpments,
they are the only units that can attack across them. Their losses
will be three times the normal for the attack. Combat across
Minor Escarpments results in twice the losses for the Attacker.
Artillery and Headquarters are not as affected; Artillery attacks
at 150% Strength if it is “looking down” on the target across an
Escarpment. This is defined as an artillery unit, in the hex that
contains the escarpment terrain feature, firing across that hexside
feature at an adjacent unit.

Run a test. Put an artillery unit on either side and open fire. See which has an enhanced strength. The one with the enhanced strength is 'on top' of the escarpment. Then let us know which part is up. [8D]

[marjur]

I don't think it's possible to do it by testing. In order for the results to be statistically accurate, it would require hundreds, if not thousands, of tests. Otherwise, the results could be pure coincidence.

Anyway, I think there is a better solution. The coders could voice their opinion. They're the guys who know the ins and outs of the code. Since there are some bonuses attached to the higher location, it should be possible to check it in the code, I suppose...

[Panama]

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

Uhm...I'm old so I have an excuse. What about everyone else?

What am I talking about?

Those are not escarpment graphics. Those are fortification graphics.

[marjur]

ORIGINAL: Panama

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

Uhm...I'm old so I have an excuse. What about everyone else?

What am I talking about?

Those are not escarpment graphics. Those are fortification graphics.

[X(] You're right!



I'll go and change the picture...

[E]

I personally believe the pointy ends are the top and/or plateau, based on the logic that the hex in question, is/has an escarpment (which is not a hole).  So the tallest portion must be in the hex with the escarpment symbol (as opposed to the six surrounding hexes).

[marjur]

Done! [8D]

[marjur]

This snapshot is taken from The Great War 1914-1918 scenario.

It seems that the designer thinks that (A) from my initial example is actually lower because it's hard to imagine that the river is flowing through a terrain that is higher than the surrounding hexes. I'd say it's rather a kind of valley...

Anyway, this would suggest that the the small pointy lines indicate a lower position.

[marjur]

However, this snapshot (taken from Festung Kolberg 1945) seems to contradict the above example.

Let's look at the escarpments near the St. George Church. If the above example is true then the hex surrounded by the escarpments should be lower than the surrounding hexes, and yet there is a mountain peak inside it.

Similarly, if the small pointy lines indicate a lower position, then the units defending behind the escarpments (anti-tank ditch) are actually lower than the attacking units from the south...

Gazownia would also be lower, but I think it's supposed to be some kind of fort...

[marjur]

[:(]

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: marjur

However, this snapshot (taken from Festung Kolberg 1945) seems to contradict the above example.

Let's look at the escarpments near the St. George Church. If the above example is true then the hex surrounded by the escarpments should be lower than the surrounding hexes, and yet there is a mountain peak inside it.

Similarly, if the small pointy lines indicate a lower position, then the units defending behind the escarpments (anti-tank ditch) are actually lower than the attacking units from the south...

Gazownia would also be lower, but I think it's supposed to be some kind of fort...

Or the person making the map made a mistake. That is the more likely explanation. To make a plateau/mesa you put the escarpment hexsides outside the hex you want as the highest elevation. Look at a North Africa map. We all know the escarpments rise as you move away from the sea. That should be your definative answer.

[Curtis Lemay]

I ran some tests using test scenarios. The results are shown in the attached table.

First, I tested for the artillery bonus. There were twenty identical bombardments - ten with an escarpment and ten without. In the first trial, the escarpment was major and in the bombarder's hex. In the second, it was again major but in the defender's hex. Then these two were repeated with minor escarpments. The results shown are defender squad losses. Clearly, the results show that only if the bombarder is in a hex with a major escarpment was the bonus received. So, the hexside with the escarpment is the "high" side.

Next, I tested for the assault penalty. Again, there were twenty assaults - ten with and ten without escarpments. The same four trials were run. The results are attacker squad losses. The results show that the penalty is suffered regardless of which direction (up or down) across the escarpment the assault is launched. It may show a slight worse penalty for major over minor escarpments.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: marjur

This snapshot is taken from The Great War 1914-1918 scenario.

It seems that the designer thinks that (A) from my initial example is actually lower because it's hard to imagine that the river is flowing through a terrain that is higher than the surrounding hexes. I'd say it's rather a kind of valley...

Anyway, this would suggest that the the small pointy lines indicate a lower position.

This might not be a designer error. Note that the ports on the major river hexes allow an "easy" crossing by any land unit without major fery capability. The major escarpments however prevent this.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Clearly, the results show that only if the bombarder is in a hex with a major escarpment was the bonus received. So, the hexside with the escarpment is the "high" side.

Great. Thanks for clearing that up.

[marjur]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

. . . So, the hexside with the escarpment is the "high" side . . .

So, let me make sure that I visualise it correctly. Here's my initial example in 3D. Should it be like this?

A is higher.

[1_Lzard]

Which scenario is this?

I'm willing to take a look using the 'old' graphics, which show things different........