ORIGINAL: Mehring
Common sense tells anyone more than a few years old that they know what a road is, it’s taken for granted. Unfortunately, such assumptions are laden with prejudice which becomes apparent when the subject is approached in ways that experience has not taught one to deal with. It’s evident from the discussion here that everyone opposed to depicting roads on map is fixated by one narrow aspect of a road- the quality of its surface. To fixate on this is to quite miss the point of what a road is and what it does.
I am flattered that you pick on my contributions, but they are the result of a thread now at nearly 60 posts long and it is easy to get lost in the detail. My points are not made from prejudice, but from extensive reading of the subject, I don't claim any privileged knowledge, merely expressing an opinion.
I am happy with the relative movement costs in clear terrain, where there will be roads and tracks, as opposed to forest terrain, where there will be less of these routes, or swamps, where there will be even less, etc.. My opinion is that the MP allocation for each type of hex adequately represents travel though these hexes, including the road and track net, which does not need additional representation.
The point about bridges as river choke points , I don't disagree with, but I see it as a separate issue, which has been made in other threads. However, the developers have decided that, at the scale that the game represents, they are not significant. The MP costs for crossing major and minor rivers must take into account bridging capability, in a one week move. I have no alternative opinion on this item.
Most smaller (mainly wooden bridges) do not become significant, as many vehicles were too heavy to use them anyway. They just forded the streams and small rivers, leaving the wooden bridges to foot soldiers and carts.
I did note the importance of certain main routes, principally the Smolensk/Moscow highway, but it has been recognised that there will be other similar routes. My position was that it was not a big issue for me and I would leave it to others to make a case if they thought it important enough.
The point about 6th PZ's experience, was to show that the road they used (in what would be WiTE swamp hexes) conferred practically no movement advantage at all, as it rapidly became unusable. In other words, the road quickly had the same mobility (or lack of it) as the rest of the terrain in those hexes, so there is no advantage in making an effort to specifically show the road.
I said 'In Russia, in summer, you could probably drive just about anywhere (excluding swamps, mountains and forests), road or no road,' - meaning that this refers only to clear terrain, obviously swamps etc., represent obstacles for which the game imposes a MP penalty. Therefore, I have not overlooked swamps and forests and I am not sure how I can be clearer.
The point is, that with exceptions already noted, most dirt road and tracks in clear areas provided little additional mobility advantage, over the rest of terrain in the hex, when taking into account the scale of the game. Generally WiTE adequately represents movement penalties, without attempting to add roads to the map.
In strategic terms all forces were more dependent on railways, as depicted in the game, trucks are represented (no horses though), but the game does not go to the level of fine focus required to depict the actual roads, or tracks, merely the general terrain. [:)]
