David Spangler
United States
Washington
-
The more I play this game, the deeper it gets and the more I enjoy it. A real tour de force, Dan.
As an old Up Front player (in both senses of the word "old"), there are a couple of things I miss. I really enjoyed the uncertainty of terrain in UF since you played the terrain card from your hand; gave a dynamic feel of moving through unknown countryside and discovering the land as you went along. And I miss the ability to entrench, though FL offers a kind of entrenching feel with Dig-In cards and the shovel. Actually what I really miss is the joy of discovering as I'm crawling through Open Space a bit of cover like a foxhole or a bit of ruins at just the moment I need it.
So I'm thinking it might be nice in an expansion if there were terrain-modifier cards that could be in the action deck, a card that would be placed permanently on a Terrain card or that might have a counter placed on that terrain card that might alter it in some way. I like the terrain rules in FL, but being able to modify the terrain and discover new things in a terrain would make the landscape seem more dynamic.
I realize as I write this that the Action Cards already cover many of the effects of terrain without specifying the actual terrain characteristics that create those effects, (Finding a Dig-In card when I need it, for instance, could be interpreted as finding a foxhole or the ruins I mentioned.) But I guess I just like the idea of being able to alter terrain itself in surprising and unexpected ways.
-
David Janik-Jones
Canada
Waterloo
Ontario
-
Yes. I'm already tinkering with a house rule or two for this very thing. Brilliantly argued. Adding to Dan's expansion workload/to-do-list already.
-
Dan Verssen
United States
Glendora
California
-
Its possible, but it depends on the feel people want.
In Up Front, you never see the whole battlefield. Each section only sees the terrain they are in. So, when new terrain pops-up, it feels okay.
In Frontline, you see the whole battlefield. We tried terrain replacing cards/mechanics in playtest, but thought it felt odd. One rule was you couldn't replace an occupied terrain card. Or else a section that was in Trees a second ago finds itself in Undergrowth. "Hey Sarge, where'd the trees go?"
So that leaves replacing unoccupied terrain. This works a little better, but still has an odd feel. An enemy section has been moving forward to reach some burned-out buldings, only to find its really open ground. Kind of feels like a desert mirage situation.
I don't mind replacing terrain, but I think the rules for how it works have to be carefully created or odd situations can pop-up.
-
David Spangler
United States
Washington
-
Dan and I had a good discussion on this on the DVG folder on CSW. The modifications I had in mind weren't about changing the terrain itself, such as going from forest to undergrowth, but about adding small modifications, like finding barbed wire or a crater or foxhole, or a wall to hide behind--that kind of thing.
But on further reflection, I got to thinking that Dan's cards already effectively do this through providing actions. If there were terrain mod cards in the deck, chances are they would only be playable on certain terrains. If those terrains aren't in the game, those cards can only be used as defaults. And it could lead a player to pay too much attention to the terrain cards and not enough to their actions, thus slowing the game down.
As it is now, all Action Cards can be used on any Terrain, and the decision to give up a particular action in order to use the card as a default move, attack, or counterattack is one of the fun and tense decision points in the game. Having a terrain modifying card that cannot be used for its special effect because the needed terrain isn't present takes away that decision making as getting rid of that card becomes a no-brainer.
Dan said they did have terrain-modifying cards early in the playtest process but that they were hardly ever used except as defaults because they didn't always fit the terrain that the players actually were using, much as I thought might be the case. So the idea was dropped, and I think rightly so.
Still if a good process could be worked out that didn't slow the game down or just add potentially useless cards to the game, I would still love to see generic terrain cards made more specific and interesting in some way.
-
Stan Hannan
United States
Florida
-
Dan
A question that I have concerning the "intent" of the terrain.Am I to assume that the terrain is somewhat abstract...for instance trees, or high ground while the majority of the terrain would not block a section from seeing and firing past that terrain card? My point is that if I am this side of high ground is that the extent of my LOS ands therefore troops behind it are hidden?
-
David Janik-Jones
Canada
Waterloo
Ontario
-
stanhannan wrote: Dan
A question that I have concerning the "intent" of the terrain.Am I to assume that the terrain is somewhat abstract...for instance trees, or high ground while the majority of the terrain would not block a section from seeing and firing past that terrain card? My point is that if I am this side of high ground is that the extent of my LOS ands therefore troops behind it are hidden?
That's the way I've interpreted the terrain system, personally. And the results I'm getting from my battles bear out the system mechanics really well.
-
|
|
