Road control and towns

[plloyd1010]

I am in a game with several turns to go, so it is a good time to ask this question. There are 3 offensive objectives, eliminate more steps, control an east-west road and control all town hexes. One of the towns sits on the east-west road.

• First question: Does controlling the road also mean controlling some or all of the town sitting on it?
  
• Second question: If the answer to the first is yes, would any contiguous path through the town and connecting to the road hexes constitute "the road"?
  

P.S. This is a Fire in the Steppe scenario. The portion of the road in question is on board 4.

[wleonard1]

I am in a game with several turns to go, so it is a good time to ask this question. There are 3 offensive objectives, eliminate more steps, control an east-west road and control all town hexes. One of the towns sits on the east-west road.

• First question: Does controlling the road also mean controlling some or all of the town sitting on it?
  
• Second question: If the answer to the first is yes, would any contiguous path through the town and connecting to the road hexes constitute "the road"?
  

P.S. This is a Fire in the Steppe scenario. The portion of the road in question is on board 4.

My thought would be , yes, you have to control enough town hexes to ensure a contiguous path. 
When controlling a road is part of the victory conditions, it represents the ability to pass reinforcements and supplies through the board, and if the road goes through a town, if you need to send supplies down the road, you also need to be able to send them through the town hexes.

Controlling some or all of the town is a good question.  Would you treat town hexes adjacent to the road different from woods or clear terrain hexes adjacent to the road?

[plloyd1010]

Yes is what I recall from a previous, though indiscernible discussion from from a few years ago. The discussion came up again because of the distinctiveness in victory condition wording, and the consideration that might be to onerous for the attacking side. Since we still have a ways to go, it seemed a good idea to achieve a concensus early.

[triangular_cube]

If VCs say to control the road, then you must be able to trace a line of controlled hexes following  along road (including town/road and woods/road) hexes from one side of the indicated map to the the other. The more recent maps make it more clear whether a hex is a town hex or a town/road hex. 

The neighboring hexes dont necessarily need to be clear.

Other scenarios use a similar VC of preventing the opposing force from being able to bring a certain road under direct fire instead of being a matter of control. I think that is a clearer VC that gets more to the point of what the army is trying to accomplish, albeit it is usually harder to achieve.

At least IMO.

[cjsiam]

TC--- do you infer that the Artwork on the map, which depicts the road is the measure?
Or does ANY path cleared through the town work?

In the case in question--you could get through in 3 hexes---but the Road depicted makes it four hexes (if you follow the artwork...)

And Control would infer---you have a unit on it? or you were the last to pass and no enemies are ON it---(they could be next to it....??)

If enemy units are NEXT to the final determined path---are you in control of the road?

[triangular_cube]

TC--- do you infer that the Artwork on the map, which depicts the road is the measure?
Or does ANY path cleared through the town work?

In the case in question--you could get through in 3 hexes---but the Road depicted makes it four hexes (if you follow the artwork...)

And Control would infer---you have a unit on it? or you were the last to pass and no enemies are ON it---(they could be next to it....??)

If enemy units are NEXT to the final determined path---are you in control of the road?

Yes, I would follow the artwork for controlling the hex, just as I do for using the road movement cost. You cant cut the corner (although I cant recall if this is actually mentioned in the rulesbook). 

Control is a term with a definition in PG per the rule book. When a VC tells me to control something, I expect to use the definition they provide. 

"Control: A hex is controlled by the player whose combat units last occupied it. At the start of a scenario, each hex is controlled by whichever side has combat units closer to it, unless scenario rules say otherwise."

So an enemy unit which is adjacent to the road is fine, as that alone does not switch control of the hex. 

This is why I like the other worded VC of preventing the enemy from being able to place the road under DF instead of controlling it. It is much more appropriate for the scale I think

[cjsiam]

So to summarize where you are---and I am with you I think:

A) The Artwork describes the road you must control
B) Last unit which occupied it, or the original controller at start of game, controls the hex....

This means a few things (confirm if you would---anyone, let's assure  consensus)
1) if you move out of a road hex---unless an enemy unit occupies the hex, you control it.
2) if you have not moved into a road (or any other hex) as the attacker, moving onto the board, you do not control it.
(VASSAL has flags in game pieces which will help with this....)

The "not under DF fire" is a vastly superior measure I think as well...but....it's not that common of a VC...maybe that should be remedied?

[plloyd1010]

Relevant points from earlier forum discussions would be:

1. Artwork within a town hex is irrelevant, all town hexes connect to other town hexes as via internal streets/roads
   
2. "Roads" go through any and all town hexes town hexes as required
   
3. Road control normally would includes contiguous town hexes connected to a road
   

The notion came into question because the objective description treat roads and town control separately, but perhaps not distinctly.

Since not within DF range, or any other fire type, road control is defined as last occupied or moved through the hex with a combat unit.

Craig, what ever that infantry company in the south field is planning to do , it isn't going to work!

[triangular_cube]

Relevant points from earlier forum discussions would be:

1. Artwork within a town hex is irrelevant, all town hexes connect to other town hexes as via internal streets/roads
   
2. "Roads" go through any and all town hexes town hexes as required
   
3. Road control normally would includes contiguous town hexes connected to a road
   

The notion came into question because the objective description treat roads and town control separately, but perhaps not distinctly.

Since not within DF range, or any other fire type, road control is defined as last occupied or moved through the hex with a combat unit.

Craig, what ever that infantry company in the south field is planning to do , it isn't going to work!

Is your point #1 from the rules somewhere? As I can't place where my interpretation came from, I'm interested in where yours came from.

[plloyd1010]

Is your point #1 from the rules somewhere? As I can't place where my interpretation came from, I'm interested in where yours came from.

I believe it was in the forums. It might have been in a Consim forum, but I think it was here too. The answer came from Matt War, which made it somewhat official. A couple other designer, developers also made similar comments.

Are you suggesting different movement conditions between town hexes?

P.S. I'll also point you to Rule 5.2, " Roads do not extend into/through town/village hexes regardless of the board artwork, and so a unit entering a town always pays the town/village movement cost."