Axis Logistics Quandary - map issue

[tim]

This is not really a rules question, but this forum is a valid place to air it. 

If you look at Map A, the road from Nofilia wanders around the Gulf of Sidra from Nofilia to Benghazi.  In places the road seems to just slightly cross into another hex while going from one hex to the next.  An example of this is A1920, near Mersa Bregha, another is A2209 next to Marble Arch.  The Road distance chart measures 61 hexes from Nofilia to Benghazi, which only works if those two hexes are not taken into account. 

So the above is how I see and count that distance, but I wanted to share that openly so that this is not a surprise. 

The quandary comes in the fact that a Medium or Heavy Truck moves 60 hexes on the road in an Ops Stage.  And that distance on the map as designed is 61. 

Note that the distance from Benghazi to Tobruk is exactly 60 hexes. 

The Axis logistics planning would be much, much simpler if we could ignore that excess hex and treat the Nofilia-Benghazi distance as 1 single Ops stage of movement.  I'd be happy to take the higher Breakdown column that would cause. 

Any interest on the Allied side in allowing that Mulligan?  That is of course noting that the exact distance only works as long as the road isn't overstacked, there are no bombed out sections or sections impinged by zones of control, etc. 

Can I get a half CPA? 

[Michael Miller]

The original map shows uncertainty re road alignment at A1820/A1920 hexside near Mersa Brega, and at A2109/A2208/A2209 adjacent to Marble Arch as you describe, Tim. The Cyberboard map seems less ambiguous here, supporting your contention at least to the point of the road being no longer than 61 hexes. It would be up to the CW of course to approve this, of course though. A one-hex bypass around El Agheila, which would be across a clear hexside, would do the trick. 

[Deleted]

I will take a look at the map (and, if necessary, the real maps) and give you my opinion, guys. I am way too familiar with people letting tools limit their work (and thinking) instead of vice-versa; if the hex map is wrong, we should certainly make the appropriate adjustments. To be honest, I don't give a damn what Cyberboard says; it's not the game and not the reality the game seeks to emulate, it's just a kludgy projection and still has not demonstrated any value added. (Yeah, I know, "be patient.")

[Deleted]

Contemporary German planning maps show the road being straighter so I have no problem at all giving whoever drew the CNA map a mulligan on A1920. In my opinion, at this scale the road should run from A1820 to A1921.


i901.photobucket.com/albums/ac213/vaerlagh/marsabregamap2png_zps904c6747.png

[Deleted]

Similarly, I can find no cartographic evidence that the road distance between A2208 and A2110 is more than 16km (2 hexes) so the road should have been drawn though only one hex (in this case A2109) and A2209 should not come into consideration. Yep, another mulligan.

In general, where the a grid would force someone to consider the distance between any two points along a relatively straight line a distance greater than a ruler would, I'll go with the ruler.

[ATD]

Approved.

[Deleted]

I have been tracing our road nets and we have lots of similar situations.

[ATD]

I thought it would not be an isolated problem, having noticed a few ambiguities while Photoshopping the map. It's possible that there is an offset on the hex grid but more likely SPI simply had their cock-up department working on it.

[Deleted]

I don't know how much Cyberboard actually controls/enables the gameplay but, if it is going to be tracking/enforcing/etc. the TEC, we'll have to make sure that it has been reviewed to make sure our common sense interpretations of the mapboard ambiguities are correctly implemented. None of the ambiguities I have found are egregious; but then, "common" sense doesn't appear to be that anymore.

[Michael Miller]

CB does not do nor keep track of any of those things as far as I am aware. It's up to us to determine move costs, breakdown, etc. It can do dice-rolling, but it's still undetermined if we would use that facility. I like real dice.

[Deleted]

"real dice" might be fine, depending on how we were to implement that option. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and trust them until they demonstrate that they're not trustworthy but allowing "real dice" in a PBEM situation would definitely be punching the envelope of my comfort zone even if I were playing with friends I had served with and known for 20+ years.

[ATD]

I have no problem with an honour system but believe that CB's facility in this area may be more accessible and useful than I initially envisaged.

Mike is quite correct in stating that MP values are outside the scope of the CB module.

[tim]

We probably will want to use a blend of rolls, on and off system. There's a ton of things that we don't need to show publicly like repair and refit die rolls. But things like Weather, Close Assault rolls, and such would probably be better done in a secured system. Unless we're working in a video-skype like session, in which case one could roll those real dice where everybody can see them.

[Michael Miller]

Summarizing, the general consensus is to allow a favorable (lower cost) interpretation when we encounter ambiguous hex/road/track combinations. Specifically as an initial example, so far we have a distance ruling of 60 hexes from Nofilia to Benghazi.