Top ten things I have learned.

[Askari19]

Well now, Ed, one man's hill is another man's mountain. But if the scenario designer wants to model slopes that vehicles can't drive up, or forests thick enough to be impassable, he can very well do it; if he doesn't, then the terrain is negotiable, simple as that. I've driven Volkswagens up and down forested slopes, much less 4x4s or halftracks. I seem to recall a conversation not too long ago about armed halftracks being combat units, and except for certain outrages like unaccompanied assaults, being able to act like it. Observing for their supported infantry is well within my definition of their role.

Askari19

LOL!
You drive a two and half tonner up to the top of Lookout Mountain without using trails or roads, please take pictures. It will go viral on YouTube.
We are talking mountains and not forested slopes?

I have no problem with armed HT's assaulting any soft targets, or assisting regular combat units in assaulting other combat units.

I like to argue my apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Talk about bananas and it should reference other bananas?
It has nothing to do what the scenario designer did in making the map. But, everything to do with what a player thought they can do. They just could not do it "for real".

Larry, you should try my "truck wars" scenario? Huge map two roads, one river, and enough AP's for each to block the bridges from the other to cross, on the first turn. After that "?" marks can look at each other for the remainder of the scenario. Unless one moves and allows the other to cross the river.



HSL

Lookout Mountain?!? LOL!! Haven't played that scenario yet. You can talk mountains, that's OK. I'm talking forested slopes. It is PRECISELY about how the scenario is designed. Whatever you or I choose to call it, it's a cluster of CS terrain hexes with defined movement rules and costs. Terrain that is slow-go or no-go on the game map is just that, and a player that doesn't read it right and use it intelligently is just not as good as he ought to be; like a guy I know :rolleyes2: that let a battalion of assault guns get backed up against an unclimbable slope... So, right there in the same scenario is a slope that vehicles can't climb. Now that I'm watching more closely, I find I really can tell the difference...:whis:

I declare (as my great-aunt would say), you do go on about what a person should or shouldn't do in what is after all a flipping wargame... and I just really don't care. I'll choose to think of it as the kind of forested slope that I have driven on, and you can make jokes about driving up mountains, and never the twain shall meet.

What is the point in arguing what constitutes a mountain, and whether a halftrack (or an M4!) could climb it "for real"? There's no way to settle such disagreements, so my approach is this: If the game system and the game map allows it, that's the only arbiter I'll accept about what can move where.

If it were "for real" I'd sneak a couple of soldiers with a pair of binoculars and a radio up that hill, and you'd never see them.... but since CS doesn't give me that realistic option, I'll do it with a great lumbering halftrack that you can spot and chase and shoot... doesn't seem to be much to complain about there, come to think on it.