Rivers in town hexes

[plloyd1010]

I'm starting a game Thursday evening where bridge and town control are important. At the south end of board 30 there is a problem where artwork and rules collide. It reminds me of the bridge arguments over Grancelles.
   
Keeping Rule 5.2 in mind, these questions come up.

1. Is hex 0716 to be considered a bridge hex?
   
2. Is there a bridge between 0717 and 0816? If so, which hex is the bridge in (for control purposes)?
   
3. Is 0713 a bridge hex or town hex, for control?
   
4. What is the bridge status of hexes 0614 or 0713
   

My opinions fall out like this:

1. 0715 and 0716 are bridge hexes as they are clearly not town hexes.
   
2. The 0717/0816 hexside is not, as defined by rule 5.2. If there are assumed non-artwork roads, there must assumed non-artwork bridges and fords.
   
3. 0713 and its ilk are town hexes, again as per rule 5.2.
   
4. 0614, again rule 5.2 implies intrinsic crossing ability with the intrinsic streets. Thus are towns.
   

Maybe there can be a consensus by Thursday 6pm MST?

[treadasaurusrex]

I generally concur, but with a couple of exceptions:

1) 0715 and 0716, are clearly depicted as bridge hexes.
2) I think that the 0717/0816 is a bridge hexside The last time I played this map in a scenario with a live opponent, we considered bridge control to be whichever side controls hex 0816, since the larger portion of the bridge "art" is on that side of the river.
3) 0713 is a bridge hex within a town hex that occupies both sides of the river as is 0615, but this latter town hex does not contain a depiction of a bridge, so IMHO, no bridge crossing is possible.
4) 0614 is a town hex on both sides of the river. Without a bridge depiction, I don't think one may cross a major river in that hex, regardless of the implications of 5.2 relative to town hexes.

For sake of simplicity, mapboard art should not include isometric views of buildings in towns, trees in woods, or hedgerows, etc. Depictions should be in true plan view, that is straight down and without shadows duplicating the style of the venerable PanzerBlitz, or current Combat Infantry mapboards.

[plloyd1010]

I generally concur, but with a couple of exceptions:

1) 0715 and 0716, are clearly depicted as bridge hexes.
2) I think that the 0717/0816 is a bridge hexside The last time I played this map in a scenario with a live opponent, we considered bridge control to be whichever side controls hex 0816, since the larger portion of the bridge "art" is on that side of the river.
3) 0713 is a bridge hex within a town hex that occupies both sides of the river as is 0615, but this latter town hex does not contain a depiction of a bridge, so IMHO, no bridge crossing is possible.
4) 0614 is a town hex on both sides of the river. Without a bridge depiction, I don't think one may cross a major river in that hex, regardless of the implications of 5.2 relative to town hexes.

For sake of simplicity, mapboard art should not include isometric views of buildings in towns, trees in woods, or hedgerows, etc. Depictions should be in true plan view, that is straight down and without shadows duplicating the style of the venerable PanzerBlitz, or current Combat Infantry mapboards.

So the rule for town hexes specifically says "regardless of the artwork". Isn't much of your conclusion specifically based upon that artwork, which according to the rules, is to be disregarded?

[treadasaurusrex]

It would be good to hear from John Stafford on this matter, as I suspect that he did not envision the kind of map art with which we must contend.

Until then, if there is a bridge in the hex, it's a bridge hex when there is no town in the same hex. If there is a town in the same hex, then it's a bridge in a town hex.

[cjsiam]

Given that the Scenario differentiates between Town hex(1 VP) control and Bridge hex control(3 VP)....
A few things come into question

1) if it is both a Bridge and Town---does it count for both, OR can it only be one?.....I'm thinking they count for both

2) Given Bridges are so important---and that in the rules Motorized cannot cross Minor rivers except at bridges or fords---Does the
 fact a minor river is in a town hex---does the fact it's a town hex NEGATE the River crossing constraint? --- I'd think not---or bridges have no point....
 So the fact it is a Town hex does not give motorized units a path across river without paying river penalties (or Inf and Mech...you pay Minor River costs to enter square, and you stop when you exit)...

Thoughts?
cj

[plloyd1010]

2) Given Bridges are so important---and that in the rules Motorized cannot cross Minor rivers except at bridges or fords---Does the
 fact a minor river is in a town hex---does the fact it's a town hex NEGATE the River crossing constraint? --- I'd think not---or bridges have no point....
 So the fact it is a Town hex does not give motorized units a path across river without paying river penalties (or Inf and Mech...you pay Minor River costs to enter square, and you stop when you exit)...

Given that roads within the town have no point. Building placement and type within have no point. What is the argument that bridges within the town have some point?

[cjsiam]

2) Given Bridges are so important---and that in the rules Motorized cannot cross Minor rivers except at bridges or fords---Does the
 fact a minor river is in a town hex---does the fact it's a town hex NEGATE the River crossing constraint? --- I'd think not---or bridges have no point....
 So the fact it is a Town hex does not give motorized units a path across river without paying river penalties (or Inf and Mech...you pay Minor River costs to enter square, and you stop when you exit)...

Given that roads within the town have no point. Building placement and type within have no point. What is the argument that bridges within the town have some point?

Rivers have a point.....
and Bridges are needed to cross rivers....
and Bridges are called out as VP.......

I guess there is some priority implicit in terrain....the fact that there are woods does not negate hills...
The fact that there is a town does not negate the river.....

[triangular_cube]

This all just seems like a rehash of the discussion on whether or not road control requires the towns in between.

I still think you are reading far too much into the wordier write up of 5.2 in 4th edition that isn't really intended. The write up is more or less the same as the annotation to 3rd edition that stopped units from paying the road movement cost to traverse a town even when those roads were depicted on the map.

4th edition is more verbose than 3rd, and it doesn't help. Now a literal interpretation of 4th tells you those roads don't exist (no such language existed in 3rd, not even in the annotation which addressed the cost of movement, not whether or not they ceased to exist). Now we are potentially expanding that to include bridges as well?

It seems to me the only support for the road not existing in the town hex, regardless of whether or not it renders a movement bonus, is a literal interpretation of only 4th. Since we have to use a literal interpretation there, I do not know how you can include bridges, which are not listed in that line.

This is also a further distortion of using modern rule sets to play older scenarios that were not "balanced" (in quotes for obvious reasons) with their use in mind. Especially when it comes to terrain. Of note, board 30 has only ever been used in 2 scenarios published after 4th was released, so unless you are playing Defense of France 6 or 10, I would have to defer to the VCs and terrain as they were when the scenario was developed, which precludes any possible interpretation of bridges not existing while in towns.

[plloyd1010]

The origin comment is mostly correct. The problem is again a rules definition.

In the 4th edition it isn't a write-up it's a rule. Specifically page 10 3.3" down on the left side of the page, second paragraph of the rule. The write-up is from the 3rd edition question, answered by someone at APL at the time, I think it was Doug McNair.

Now we are potentially expanding that to include bridges as well?

Are we? My question is about the relevancy of artwork, specifically declared to be irrelevant.

This is also a further distortion of using modern rule sets to play older scenarios that were not "balanced" (in quotes for obvious reasons) with their use in mind. Especially when it comes to terrain.

Is it? Is not Fall of France a 4th edition game? BtW: Map 30 has been used in 26 scenarios, not 2. You can make it 27 if you want to count the Division Marocain scenario where it is used.

Now none of that has forwarded the discussion and understanding as to bridge artwork in towns, or it's implication as bridges as a victory component. Shall we get back to that now? Cjsaim and I have fight scheduled.

[triangular_cube]

The origin comment is mostly correct. The problem is again a rules definition.

In the 4th edition it isn't a write-up it's a rule. Specifically page 10 3.3" down on the left side of the page, second paragraph of the rule. The write-up is from the 3rd edition question, answered by someone at APL at the time, I think it was Doug McNair.

Now we are potentially expanding that to include bridges as well?

Are we? My question is about the relevancy of artwork, specifically declared to be irrelevant.

This is also a further distortion of using modern rule sets to play older scenarios that were not "balanced" (in quotes for obvious reasons) with their use in mind. Especially when it comes to terrain.

Is it? Is not Fall of France a 4th edition game? BtW: Map 30 has been used in 26 scenarios, not 2. You can make it 27 if you want to count the Division Marocain scenario where it is used.

Now none of that has forwarded the discussion and understanding as to bridge artwork in towns, or it's implication as bridges as a victory component. Shall we get back to that now? Cjsaim and I have fight scheduled.

So what is your question then? Because it seems to everyone answering this thread that you are asking if bridges exist when sitting in towns. Seeing as you do not believe discussing the conditions surrounding said bridges and the rules applying to them are forwarding the discussion, what are you hoping to get out of this thread?

Fall of France was developed and published with 3rd edition. 4th was first published with Burning Tigers, although the argument could be made that those few modules directly proceeding that were developed for 4th that doesnt apply here. Hence 2 scenarios being developed and published after 4th edition with map 30 involved. As stated, you are going to have distortions, especially terrain related when you port in new rules into old scenarios. If you are changing rules you need to translate the VCs to go along with them.