Matrix Games Forums

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. [:)]

Now, just to mud the discussion a bit more... there are no bridges in Russia either! The cost of crossing a large river is the same whether there is a railway crossing or not. I found it the hard way, as I send the 26th Mech Corps to recapture Daugavpils, as it actually happened (as it had one of the few bridges over the Daugava), just to find the AI completely ignored Daugavpils and went around it.

I mean, some bridges proved to be strategic during WW2, either that was in France on the Meuse, or in Arnheim, or in Daugavpils.

Similarly, the movement cost in swamps (and everywhere else) is the same, whether there is a railway or not. So the only effect that railways have is on supplies and strategic movement - the only place where I see an effect in regular movement is on mountains. Otherwise, having railroad or not seems to be all the same.

@Rasputitsa
Well I'm glad you are flattered, I certainly meant no personal offense, even while calling your opinion prejudiced, which I maintain. While I do not doubt you are well read on the subject, it is how you interpret what you read which determines your prejudice or lack thereof. Apart from noting that you argue a position rather than express an opinion, I don't think there's a lot to add to what has already been said. I'm happy to agree to differ.

@fbs
I'm glad you mentioned that. I noticed that in woods, swamps and across rivers, or thought I did, but wasn't sure as there are so many variables. I'm still not sure, but certainly there doesn't seem to be any movement benefit moving across rail hexsides.

ORIGINAL: Mehring
@Rasputitsa
Well I'm glad you are flattered, I certainly meant no personal offense, even while calling your opinion prejudiced, which I maintain. While I do not doubt you are well read on the subject, it is how you interpret what you read which determines your prejudice or lack thereof. Apart from noting that you argue a position rather than express an opinion, I don't think there's a lot to add to what has already been said. I'm happy to agree to differ.

I did not take offence, however prejudice is to judge before seeking evidence, I would have hoped you might have at least accepted that I have made significant efforts to seek evidence, before forming an opinion. The Forum is surely the place to argue a position so that others can consider the comments and add their views, be they for, or against. Only a prejudiced person would form concrete opinions without reading the comments of others.

However, I have clearly been able to express an opinion, e.g. that roads and tracks are catered for in the MP penalties of WiTE and therefore do not need to appear on the map, with the exception of certain main highways such as the Smolensk/Moscow highway, which became the 'Rollbahn' for the Germans (on which I hold an open view), it is not a big issue for me, but I am very interested in the opinions others.

On the original subject of the thread, airports in Russia, I held a view from the limited information I had, that there were probably no concrete runways in Russia at the beginning of the war. Evidence was offered that the Russians were using concrete paving on airfields in the 1930's. I spent some time searching for more evidence on the subject and found references to Russian airbases having concrete runways in 1941, this does not support my case, but the truth is the truth. Now the discussion moves to whether there were enough concrete all weather runways to be significant in the game. But you will know all this, having read the thread before expressing an opinion !

You made certain assumptions from my earlier comments, which I have now explained, I am prepared to differ, but I am not prepared to be mis-represented. Perhaps you should re-read you quotation from Arthur Schopenhauer.

So I have made my position clear, what are you proposing to improve the game, or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing ? [:)]

Rasputitsa, I have assumed nothing, faithfully quoted you and argued against your actual, not your imagined position. If you re-read my criticism of what you've said, I don't think you can honestly say I have misrepresented you in any way.

Prejudice is not necessarily to make judgement before seeking evidence, but also to do so before you have understood, or have knowledge of the matter in question. Accurate interpretation is needed to transform reading into knowledge. While I can accept your sincerity and efforts to inform yourself and the forum, you certainly dug up some useful stuff on airfields, I don't accept you understand the question of roads in the game as I've raised it. Your comments indicate otherwise. I can only go by what you say, and you do keep repeating the same things. So best to agree to differ.

Help me understand what your primary issue is with the lack of road representation. What issues do you think it causes? Perhaps I've failed to adequately parse your points on the matter, and I'll take a mea culpa gladly on that one.

I still lean towards it being irrelevant at the level of the game, with the possible exception of the main highway from Minsk to Moscow. Major bridges also are a point I can understand as being a possible weakness, certainly at some of the very major rivers that exist in Russia.

Seems to me that terrain was a far more relevant issue, since Russia was not heavily populated and thus the fences and barriers you mention are scarcely an issue in most of Russia. Tanks and infantry move just as well over open fields as they would over the dirt tracks that masquerade as roads in most of the USSR at this time. Mud would and does eliminate every possible advantage any of the so-called roads in Russia would offer.

I just don't see what is being left out by incorporating the 'road' factor into terrain costs. Just seems to work IMO.

I'm pretty much with Mynok here. Leaning to it's in the wash with the cost of movement over terrain. But with bridges and the choke points they create being an issue perhaps.

Long story short, still undecided.

If you put in bridges then you will have to redo how supply is done.  Especially across the Dnepr.  Ferries were used until the river iced up and they had to shut them down.  I don't know if any bridges were captured intact.  Forget how long it took to get a bridge across.  If you have roads then congestion might be an issue, more programing.  Most east front boardgames at this scale don't have roads if I remember.  This works fine for me.  Oh yea if you read the accounts the main road from Minsk to Moscow was used for supply, troops had to use the shoulders or the worse roads paralleling the main one.   

ORIGINAL: Mehring
Rasputitsa, I have assumed nothing, faithfully quoted you and argued against your actual, not your imagined position. If you re-read my criticism of what you've said, I don't think you can honestly say I have misrepresented you in any way.

You may have faithfully quoted, but followed with mis-representation :

I said - 'In Russia, in summer, you could probably drive just about anywhere (excluding swamps, mountains and forests), road or no road,'

Your representation - 'Either swamps and forests (and other obstacles Rasputitsa and the German soldiers have overlooked) were far more prevalent than Rasputitsa realises.'

I fail to see how I overlooked swamps and forests, as they are represented in the game, but then to be mis-represented and accused of prejudice !

Your intervention post of more than 1500 words was interesting, but what are you actually suggesting, in what way do you want the game to be changed to represent your un-prejudiced opinion. You are correct I do not 'understand the question of roads in the game as I've raised it.'

The point of this forum is WiTE and where it might be improved, or where changes are not required. I propose to return to that objective and await with anticipation your proposals for improving the game. [:)]