Help Make the Map

[WotC Bob]

Background:
As mentioned in previous threads, I have been thinking about doing a large river map set to allow for scenarios dealing with river crossings, fording, bridge capture, etc. I thought people might have some fun if we made this more of a transparent process where everyone could have some input into the final map.

Note:
In the end it will be up to myself and/or R&D to make final decisions on the map and it is inevitable that people will have competing visions. This means that on any given design topic, your ideas may or may not get incorporated.

Process:
I will post a design topic and explain the parameters of the discussion. We will then discuss that and come up with a solution, then move onto the next topic. There may be times we will backtrack or change the parameters. Try to stay on the current design topic and not "work ahead." Throughout this process we will be using rough mockups of the maps. Be aware that these are mockups for discussion purposes and not final product.

Overall Map Concept:

• River Map 1 - A wide three to four hex river with adjoining low river banks that should rise up to a higher level, like a low bluff.
• River Map 2 - Essentially the same as River Map 1, with the addition of a ford
• River Bank 1 & 2 Maps - Maps that adjoin the river and expand the map outwards to provide the surrounding terrain
• Bridges: These could be permanently placed on the river map, or be separate tiles and could include highway, railroad, pontoon and/or ferry

The river map is intended to provide a map set that is reusable, reconfigurable (to a degree) and fun to play. The map set will consist of the following:


Ground Rules:

1. Keep it civil and sane
2. Stay on the current design topic. Enthusiasm is great, but running off, designing the entire map and then posting it here defeats the purpose of this project. It's a community project, let everyone have their say.
3. Wizards of the Coast retains the rights to any final decisions on the maps.
4. Have fun

[WotC Bob]

Design Topic #1 Map/River Orientation

Before we can do anything else, we have to figure out which way our river is going to run on the maps. Because of the nature of hexes, we have two options, what I am labeling vertical and horizontal.

Horizontal layout is effective because it provides a long river with 1 1/2 adjoining bank hexes. The half hex could be tied to an adjoining half hex of a new map to provide 2 full river bank hexes and a clean join for the maps. The problem with the horizontal map is that bridges have to run on the diagonal, making them much longer and making them block LOS for a lot of the map (assuming they block line of sight).
Horizontal River

Vertical Layout has the advantage that bridges can run in straight lines. The trade off is that it takes more copies of the map to make a long bank of the river.
Vertical River

I'm sure people here can come up with more pros/cons of each design. Think about things like how many maps you would need, total size of the layout, etc.

[Canuck_Captain]

Maybe even add in on a diagonal across the map, it is split across the middle or one half is bigger than the other for a cool assault scenario, then there would be no bridge problem.

[WotC Bob]

Originally Posted by Canuck_Captain

Maybe even add in on a diagonal across the map, it is split across the middle or one half is bigger than the other for a cool assault scenario, then there would be no bridge problem.

True. If we did bridges as tiles, then players could put the bridge wherever they wanted on the map, or as per the scenario. I was thinking that in some situations, bridges might not go from river bank to river bank, but instead from the bank/bluff above the river to the one on the other side, or perhaps I should say the approach to the bridge would. Arnhem pic for reference: Arnhem Bridge

[Pasalades]

The vertical River you suggested has the drawback of an inconsistant width. The horizontal river also provides more space for the bank which will be important for maneuvering. It is important to consider the movement of amphibious vehicles as well. 2 hexes of water movement mean that it will take two phases to cross the river whether it is four or three haxes wide. Also worth considering in this decision is where other maps will go in relation to the river. having a set-up like this Normal Map-River Map-Normal Map means that you could have a lot of space away from the river that just isn't going to see use. Most of the tactical movement will be along or across the river so whatever orientation we use for the river should be conducive to getting the most of the terrain and not leaving too much excess in the rear of the fighting.

[OtterSC]

i know this is a discusion and not a preference.

i can see the vertical map best. the latest map set released entails 6 maps. the vertical map could have a map on both ends. providing a large map. or, only use one river map and another map on either end. giving a goal to be based at a bridge or shore line.

yes, more copies needed for a longer shore line. but if the objective area is placed in the adjoining maps, should not be a problem. also, place the river to the top of the map to allow for manuevering.

horizontal is also nice concept. rivers are not a straight line. the mention of a bridge will be diagonal is possible and more natural looking for a scenario on a river that bends, say, around a forest or hill/mountain.

[4242david4242]

Originally Posted by Pasalades

The vertical River you suggested has the drawback of an inconsistant width.

I wouldn't think that inconsistent width is really a defect, but a feature. Real rivers don't have perfectly consistent widths. From a purely aesthetic standpoint, I like that the width of the vertical river is inconsistent, but I just wish the inconsistency were not so periodic (i.e. the repeated widening and narrowing by one hex looks unnatural). Besides, narrow parts of rivers -- because of the fact that they made fording rivers easier and quicker -- were natural strategic objectives. So rivers with inconsistent widths would make game play more interesting than rivers with consistent width, IMHO.

I would recommend that the rivers wiggles a little bit, to make it look more natural.

The horizontal river also provides more space for the bank which will be important for maneuvering.

With standard maps placed on either side of the river, there ought to be enough room for maneuvering no matter what river orientation we have.

It is important to consider the movement of amphibious vehicles as well. 2 hexes of water movement mean that it will take two phases to cross the river whether it is four or three haxes wide.

This calculation assumes that amphibious vehicles will move across wide, potentially fast moving, rivers at the same rate they are able to move across narrow streams or ponds. Not to get ahead of the discussion, but for all we know the movement across a wide river could count triple or could be restricted to only one hex per phase regardless of the vehicle's speed.

having a set-up like this Normal Map-River Map-Normal Map means that you could have a lot of space away from the river that just isn't going to see use.

Depending on the scenario, you could always set up the maps like: Normal Map-Normal Map-River Map. That way you have troops piling up on one bank as they prepare to cross the river and defenders spread out along the other bank. Behind the defenders can be reinforcements, the objective, etc.

[Joisey]

Assuming the least amount of maps; three, the river and two more maps top and bottom; the horizontal river works best, as it provides a longer river frontage, which puts more of the river crossing battle in play, and still provides plenty of depth on either side for the defender to lay out a set piece defense and for the attacker to stage his crossing.

The vertical map in it's smallest configuration (one river map with two other maps placed as "book ends") is too narrow and confined a play area. It makes the defender's job too easy and the attacker's job too hard.

Scaling up to use more maps lessens these considerations, but I think you want to consider how this map configuration works in the smallest configuration, in consideration of the players with the most modest means in terms of ability to procure maps, or table space.

[4242david4242]

Originally Posted by WotC Bob

If we did bridges as tiles, then players could put the bridge wherever they wanted on the map, or as per the scenario. I was thinking that in some situations, bridges might not go from river bank to river bank, but instead from the bank/bluff above the river to the one on the other side, or perhaps I should say the approach to the bridge would. Arnhem pic for reference: Arnhem Bridge

I really like the idea of bridge tiles, so we can customize the map from game to game.

If you introduce situations where a bridge might not go from river bank to river bank (which I think would be really cool), then you will have to decide how the approach to the bridge would effect line of sight and cover. If two units were on the same side of the river bank, but they were on different sides of the approach, would the approach block line of sight? If not, would the approach grant any benefits of cover? How would the approach effect vehicle movement under it (i.e. parallel to the river bank)? Could planes target units that are stopped underneath the approach? I'm no military history expert, but I recall a big deal being made out of the smart bombs in Desert Storm that were able to hit tanks hiding under highway overpasses. The implication here is that this would have been difficult or impossible to do, but for the millions of tax dollars we had spent on those pricey little bombs.

[WotC Bob]

In the final product, the width of the river wont follow the exact hex spines as in the mockup so it will appear to be irregular to some degree. We can also change how it goes 4-3-4-3 to some other set up, like this:Alternate Vertical Map

I guess the actual width of the river should follow the discussion on orientation first.

Frankly I'm torn as my initial inclination was going horizontal for the reasons Palasades pointed out. Having the bridge being the final objective in a longer series of maps, however, is a good point. I'm thinking though that you might want to have two scenarios for something like that as you would most likely want some room to manuever around the bridge. With two horizontal river maps you could also have a railroad bridge across one and a highway across the other yet have them distant enough from each other to provide some interesting attack/defense choices without having to have a ton of maps.