Five Tribes Five Tribes

Forums

Search
Forums » Memoir '44 - English » mountain to hill combat
Show: Today's Posts 
  
AuthorTopic
Nightrain
Senior Member
Oberstleutnant

User Pages
Posts: 424
Registered:
October 2008
mountain to hill combat Tue, 16 February 2010 10:47
hi all,
would like to know if my infantry is on a mountain and 3 hexes away from a unit on a regular hill and he has LOS, can i shoot with 1d ?
      
tank commander
Senior Member
I Love Pineapples

User Pages
Posts: 2164
Registered:
October 2004
Re:mountain to hill combat Tue, 16 February 2010 10:57
Steve Nightrain wrote on Tue, 16 February 2010 04:47

hi all,
would like to know if my infantry is on a mountain and 3 hexes away from a unit on a regular hill and he has LOS, can i shoot with 1d ?




Firing onto a hill from lower terrain is a -1d roll reduction. So, yes, that attack is legit.
      
Antoi
Senior Member
Bring Boys Back Home

User Pages
Posts: 667
Registered:
March 2005
Re:mountain to hill combat Tue, 16 February 2010 13:40
On the other hand, the hexes are not connected. And if you battle from one hill to another with no connection you also get a -1 for attacking....
      
Nightrain
Senior Member
Oberstleutnant

User Pages
Posts: 424
Registered:
October 2008
Re:mountain to hill combat Tue, 16 February 2010 16:34
John, thanks and that's what i thought, since hill to mountain suffer -1 dice, then it's safe to assume that mountain is higher than hill therefore attacking from a higher place shouldn't suffer any dice reduction

and hi Antoi, sorry but you're not correct about that
there's no dice reduction even though the hills not connected, as long as you're standing on the hill and have LOS
      
stevens
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

User Pages
Posts: 3070
Registered:
February 2007
Re:mountain to hill combat Tue, 16 February 2010 20:31
I offer these only as examples and not to contradict anything that has been said about hill to mountain combat. I wanted to see if we are all viewing these hill-mountain interactions in the same way:

If a unit on a mountain is attacking a unit on an adjacent mountain hex, there is no terrain dice reduction.
M-M

If a unit is on a Mountain range that is connected and is attacking another mountain hex in that same range with open terrain between them, there is no terrain dice reduction.
M-M-M
M-O-M
M-M-M
(So if I was attacking from one corner to the other with open terrain in between, no terrain dice reduction).

If a unit on a mountain is attacking a unit on a distant unconnected mountain.
(-2 terrain dice reduction)
M-O-M

If a unit on a mountain is attacking an adjacent hill, no terrain dice reduction.
M-H

If a unit on a hill is attacking an adjacent unit on a mountain (-2 terrain dice reduction)
H-M

If a unit on a mountain is attacking a distant hill hex with open terrain in between, no terrain dice reduction.
M-0-0-H

If a unit on a hill is attacking a distant mountain hex with open terrain in between, (-2 terrain dice reduction).
H-O-M.


In all these examples, I have not considered any dice reductions due to distance, only the dice reduction due to the nature and position of the terrain. Please let me know if I have these correct.
      
sam1812
Senior Member
Brigadier General

User Pages
Posts: 2278
Registered:
August 2006
Re:mountain to hill combat Wed, 17 February 2010 00:11
Sounds right to me, Stevens. Thank you for your meticulous and clear presentation.
      
Nightrain
Senior Member
Oberstleutnant

User Pages
Posts: 424
Registered:
October 2008
Re:mountain to hill combat Wed, 17 February 2010 04:36
Quote:


If a unit on a mountain is attacking a unit on a distant unconnected mountain.
(-2 terrain dice reduction)
M-O-M



i assume H-O-H and M-O-M should be treated the same, didn't it ?
so if H-O-H unconnected hill doesn't suffer terrain reduction, so does M-O-M
      
stevens
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

User Pages
Posts: 3070
Registered:
February 2007
Re:mountain to hill combat Wed, 17 February 2010 05:39
Steve,
See note on bottom of Mountain Terrain Card:

http://www.daysofwonder.com/memoir44/en/content/cards_compen dium/?id=terrain_30

Quote:

*Only applies to units battling from below or not on same range


So the specific rule which causes the -2 dice reduction is in regards to mountains that are not on the same range. This particular notation is not on the HILL TERRAIN CARD. And so hills do not suffer this dice reduction even if they are not in line or connected or contiguous.

[Updated on: Wed, 17 February 2010 05:41]

      
somethingquietlyironic
Junior Member
Second Lieutenant

User Pages
Posts: 20
Registered:
October 2009
Re:mountain to hill combat Wed, 17 February 2010 12:00
What happens when there are caves? javascript: insertTag(document.post_form.msg_body, '', ' Laughing ');
      
stevens
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

User Pages
Posts: 3070
Registered:
February 2007
Re:mountain to hill combat Wed, 17 February 2010 13:38
I assume from your question that you wonder how the effect of cave terrain applies in dice reduction. The difference comes if you are an Allied Unit or a Japanese Unit


FAQ -p15.
Quote:

Q. Only the Japanese units benefit from the defense of caves, but if an Allied unit is on a cave hex do they enjoy the defensive benefit of the underlying terrain?
A. Yes. Allied units receive the battle benefit from the underlying hill (-1 from below) or mountain (-2).

      
sam1812
Senior Member
Brigadier General

User Pages
Posts: 2278
Registered:
August 2006
Re:mountain to hill combat Wed, 17 February 2010 14:37
Note that the cave protection for Japanese is regardless of whether you're attacking from same level or below, and regardless of whether attacking from a hill that is connected or not.

[quote title=Steve Nightrain wrote on Tue, 16 February 2010 22:36]
Quote:

i assume H-O-H and M-O-M should be treated the same, didn't it ?

No, Steve. They are treated very differently. You should send MOM flowers. She will give them H2O. Smile
      
stevens
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

User Pages
Posts: 3070
Registered:
February 2007
Re:mountain to hill combat Wed, 17 February 2010 14:42
O-U-C-H
S-A-M

Razz
      
Nightrain
Senior Member
Oberstleutnant

User Pages
Posts: 424
Registered:
October 2008
Re:mountain to hill combat Wed, 17 February 2010 17:06
lol
another new information for me, thanks guys
      
Mighty Jim 83
Senior Member
Starshiy Leytenant

User Pages
Posts: 333
Registered:
August 2009
Re:mountain to hill combat Thu, 18 February 2010 19:23
Does anyone else feel like the -2 for H-M seems a little harsh? it would make more sense to me if the reductions were incremental. -1 for ground to hill, -1 for hill to mountain, so if you were attacking from a hill to an adjacent mountain (presumably a higher part of the same range), you'd only be -1 dice
      
rasmussen81
DoW Content Provider
Designer's Oath

User Pages
Posts: 7134
Registered:
July 2007
Re:mountain to hill combat Thu, 18 February 2010 19:54
Mighty Jim 83 wrote on Thu, 18 February 2010 10:23

Does anyone else feel like the -2 for H-M seems a little harsh? it would make more sense to me if the reductions were incremental. -1 for ground to hill, -1 for hill to mountain, so if you were attacking from a hill to an adjacent mountain (presumably a higher part of the same range), you'd only be -1 dice


At first we thought that was the rule but we got official clarification from Richard that it's -2 unless they are at the same height. The way I remember him explaining it, is that the mountain is not just representing a pleasant step up from the hills, but rather the jagged peaks found all throughout Europe. There are so many places to hide and find cover, even from a foothill, that you get major protection from the mountains! Cool
      
Mighty Jim 83
Senior Member
Starshiy Leytenant

User Pages
Posts: 333
Registered:
August 2009
Re:mountain to hill combat Fri, 19 February 2010 15:46
Ah, i see - makes much more sense if you think of it in terms of craginess, rather than simply elevation.
      
g1ul10
Junior Member
Maggiore

User Pages
Posts: 27
Registered:
April 2013
Re:mountain to hill combat Sat, 11 January 2014 19:36
Dear all,
I've a few questions regarding LOS and Hill/Mountain hex. Consider these two situations:

Case 1: continuous slope

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-D74d6XeLwDE/UtFYvRW85dI/AAAAAAAAEm4/o7jGyjmFEmA/s288/IMG_20140111_153721.jpg

Case 2: mountain to non-adjacent hill

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-WF2S9hqs4ac/UtFYu_VpDPI/AAAAAAAAEnI/jtmiaNJGsGA/s288/IMG_20140111_153758.jpg

I would like to know in which cases the two units see each other. I know that something has already been said in previous posts. Nonetheless, at the risk of being pedantic, I would like to have a sort of summary, if possible. I'm interested both in official ruling AND in your knowledgeable opinion.

Thank you in advance!

G.


      
stevens
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

User Pages
Posts: 3070
Registered:
February 2007
Re:mountain to hill combat Sat, 11 January 2014 20:32
g1ul10 wrote on Sat, 11 January 2014 13:36

Dear all,
I've a few questions regarding LOS and Hill/Mountain hex. Consider these two situations:

Case 1: continuous slope

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-D74d6XeLwDE/UtFYvRW85dI/AAAAAAAAEm4/o7jGyjmFEmA/s288/IMG_20140111_153721.jpg

Case 2: mountain to non-adjacent hill

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-WF2S9hqs4ac/UtFYu_VpDPI/AAAAAAAAEnI/jtmiaNJGsGA/s288/IMG_20140111_153758.jpg

I would like to know in which cases the two units see each other. I know that something has already been said in previous posts. Nonetheless, at the risk of being pedantic, I would like to have a sort of summary, if possible. I'm interested both in official ruling AND in your knowledgeable opinion.

Thank you in advance!

G.





CASE #1
The hill between the unit on the mountain and the unit on level ground blocks LOS. So even though you describe it as a continuous slope, the two infantry units have no Line OF Sight.

CASE #2
The hill adjacent to the mountain is now on the same "plateau" as the next adjacent hill with an infantry unit. LOS is not blocked for the infantry on the mountain and he may fire. However, for the infantry unit on the hill although he may also have line of sight, the -2 reduction for mountain and -1 deduction for distance will virtually make his target unreachable.
      
Jeronimon
Senior Member
Brigadier

User Pages
Posts: 1084
Registered:
November 2007
Re:mountain to hill combat Sat, 11 January 2014 20:56
A question related to this one is: how high are ERGS.

In the Belgian Open this year there was a scenario with hills and Ergs. The judges ruled that there should be a -1d reduction since nowhere it is stated that Ergs and Hills are of equal height.
      
tank commander
Senior Member
I Love Pineapples

User Pages
Posts: 2164
Registered:
October 2004
Re:mountain to hill combat Sat, 11 January 2014 21:17
Jeronimon wrote on Sat, 11 January 2014 14:56

A question related to this one is: how high are ERGS.

In the Belgian Open this year there was a scenario with hills and Ergs. The judges ruled that there should be a -1d reduction since nowhere it is stated that Ergs and Hills are of equal height.


From the Med Rules:

"Except for this movement restriction (this just refers to the fact that units must stop and move no further on a turn they enter such terrain) and a higher air check value, Ergs & Ridges behave like hills in all other respects."

So, an errant ruling by those judges which should have been caught with a read through of the rules.
      
JJAZ
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel

User Pages
Posts: 621
Registered:
May 2008
Re:mountain to hill combat Sat, 11 January 2014 21:19
I think most was covered here about mountains and hills :
http://www.daysofwonder.com/memoir44/en/editor/view/?id=1096
J.

[Updated on: Sat, 11 January 2014 21:19]

      
stevens
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

User Pages
Posts: 3070
Registered:
February 2007
Re:mountain to hill combat Sat, 11 January 2014 21:27
tank commander wrote on Sat, 11 January 2014 15:17

Jeronimon wrote on Sat, 11 January 2014 14:56

A question related to this one is: how high are ERGS.

In the Belgian Open this year there was a scenario with hills and Ergs. The judges ruled that there should be a -1d reduction since nowhere it is stated that Ergs and Hills are of equal height.


From the Med Rules:

"Except for this movement restriction (this just refers to the fact that units must stop and move no further on a turn they enter such terrain) and a higher air check value, Ergs & Ridges behave like hills in all other respects."

So, an errant ruling by those judges which should have been caught with a read through of the rules.

As relating to the errant judgement. The judges at the Belgian Open had several changes in designation regarding STEEP HILLS and other terrain. therefore I would not say it was errant judgement but rather a more specific rule set that they were following that differed from the standard. We would typically call these "house rules", they would probably call them "tournament specific" rules. They decided in advance to rule this way and I believe they were more than likely consistent in their rulings.

[Updated on: Sat, 11 January 2014 21:29]

      
tank commander
Senior Member
I Love Pineapples

User Pages
Posts: 2164
Registered:
October 2004
Re:mountain to hill combat Sat, 11 January 2014 21:31
stevens wrote on Sat, 11 January 2014 15:27

tank commander wrote on Sat, 11 January 2014 15:17

Jeronimon wrote on Sat, 11 January 2014 14:56

A question related to this one is: how high are ERGS.

In the Belgian Open this year there was a scenario with hills and Ergs. The judges ruled that there should be a -1d reduction since nowhere it is stated that Ergs and Hills are of equal height.


From the Med Rules:

"Except for this movement restriction (this just refers to the fact that units must stop and move no further on a turn they enter such terrain) and a higher air check value, Ergs & Ridges behave like hills in all other respects."

So, an errant ruling by those judges which should have been caught with a read through of the rules.

As relating to the errant judgement. The judges at the Belgian Open had several changes in designation regarding STEEP HILLS and other terrain. therefore I would not say it was errant judgement but rather a more specific rule set that they were following that differed from the standard. We would typically call these "house rules", they would probably call them "tournament specific" rules. They decided in advance to rule this way and I believe they were more than likely consistent in their rulings.


I see.

I was just going by the post which sounded like the ruling was made sometime during play and appeared the judges did not know that ergs and hill are indeed act the same with one exception.
      
stevens
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

User Pages
Posts: 3070
Registered:
February 2007
Re:mountain to hill combat Sat, 11 January 2014 21:53
tank commander wrote on Sat, 11 January 2014 15:31


I see.

I was just going by the post which sounded like the ruling was made sometime during play and appeared the judges did not know that ergs and hill are indeed act the same with one exception.


Yes, jeronimon may be correct that a mistake was made. However, I am aware from conversations with other participants that some changes in how other terrain would be treated was planned for and this may also be the case.

You will have no argument from me about keeping the rules for terrain as standard as possible. Nevertheless, anyone may modify the terrain rules in the way they write SPECIFIC RULES for their own scenarios.
As you are well aware the Air Pack rule sets for several scenarios were changed when units taking ground up hills now had to deal with cliffs and bluffs.
      
g1ul10
Junior Member
Maggiore

User Pages
Posts: 27
Registered:
April 2013
Re:mountain to hill combat Sat, 11 January 2014 23:30
Thank you steven for your prompt and clear explanation. While it is different from other games I played in the past, I see the logic in it. And this is actually the way we played.

JJAZ thank you for pointing me to the hills battlemap. I had the occasion to look at it already. But as far as I can see, there are ONLY hills on that map. No mountains. It is specifically the interaction, so to speak, between mountains and hills rules that caused to us a bit of concern. Of course if someone with the map editor would be so nice to produce another battlemap with example involving hills/mountain, I (and I suppose also some other members of the community) will surely appreciate the effort!

G.
      
JFKoski
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

User Pages
Posts: 603
Registered:
October 2005
Re:mountain to hill combat Sun, 12 January 2014 02:06
stevens wrote on Sat, 11 January 2014 14:32


CASE #2
The hill adjacent to the mountain is now on the same "plateau" as the next adjacent hill with an infantry unit. LOS is not blocked for the infantry on the mountain and he may fire. However, for the infantry unit on the hill although he may also have line of sight, the -2 reduction for mountain and -1 deduction for distance will virtually make his target unreachable.


This is not correct. Mountains do not benefit from a hill's "plateau". They can no more shoot over a hill than they can shoot over a forest or a village.

FAQ p 13

Q. Can an Infantry or Armor unit on a Mountain hex see over a terrain hex that blocks Line of Sight since Mountains are at such a high elevation?
A. No. Terrain that blocks Line of Sight, even though it may be low elevation, prevents units from seeing more distant targets.
Note: Unless noted otherwise in the scenario's Special Rules, Mountains are impassable to Armor and Artillery units.


There is a hills los examples under official sceanrios. A while back I posted under SFTF a supplement for mountains los. I believe this is correct and I have been playing scenarios involving mountains accordingly.

Note: attacking from mountain to unconnected mountain suffers the -2 reduction, unlike unconnected hills which doesn't suffer the -1.

Strangely, DOW released the Terrain Pack with all these Terrain Tiles, rules and badges, but didn't offer scenarios that use them for some years!

[Updated on: Sun, 12 January 2014 02:26]

      
stevens
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

User Pages
Posts: 3070
Registered:
February 2007
Re:mountain to hill combat Sun, 12 January 2014 03:26
JFKoski wrote on Sat, 11 January 2014 20:06

stevens wrote on Sat, 11 January 2014 14:32


CASE #2
The hill adjacent to the mountain is now on the same "plateau" as the next adjacent hill with an infantry unit. LOS is not blocked for the infantry on the mountain and he may fire. However, for the infantry unit on the hill although he may also have line of sight, the -2 reduction for mountain and -1 deduction for distance will virtually make his target unreachable.


This is not correct. Mountains do not benefit from a hill's "plateau". They can no more shoot over a hill than they can shoot over a forest or a village.


I must respectfully disagree with you. The unit on the mountain is not shooting OVER the adjacent hill in CASE #2. The adjacent hill is part of a continuous plateau and so the unit on the mountain it is only shooting down onto the plateau which consists of two adjacent hills. If the two adjacent hexes were open terrain instead of hills it would have the same effect.
What you are describing as an adjacent hill blocking LOS is more adequately demonstrated in CASE# 1 where the hill terrain is actually between two hexes of different elevations.
This is however only how I see it. DOW official arbitration on this issue may vary from my viewpoint. it would not be the first time.

[Updated on: Sun, 12 January 2014 04:15]

      
g1ul10
Junior Member
Maggiore

User Pages
Posts: 27
Registered:
April 2013
Re:mountain to hill combat Sun, 12 January 2014 10:34
Hi JFKoski thank you for pointing me to your mountain example. Very much appreciated. Concerning example 2, for what is worth I would tend to agree with stevens' interpretation. Another possible way of thinking to it is: IF the mountain hex were replaced by a hill hex, THEN we would have three consecutive hills and, according to official rules, there would be LOS between the two units (the "plateau" effect). How can it be that replacing the hill hex below a unit with a mountain destroy this LOS? I can understand that, according to the prevailing interpretation, a "mountain" in Memoir 44 is not much higher than a hill. But I would say that, according to common sense, it cannot be lower, or the name "mountain" would be unwarranted and deceiving. But this is just my opinion and I would really like to know how do you see it.

G.

[Updated on: Sun, 12 January 2014 14:42]

      
g1ul10
Junior Member
Maggiore

User Pages
Posts: 27
Registered:
April 2013
Re:mountain to hill combat Sun, 12 January 2014 14:39
No Message Body

[Updated on: Sun, 12 January 2014 14:43]

      
JFKoski
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

User Pages
Posts: 603
Registered:
October 2005
Re:mountain to hill combat Sun, 12 January 2014 18:35
This was discussed in the thread, Official FAQ Book, a couple years ago before the latest FAQ.

rasmussen81 wrote on Wed, 28 July 2010 09:36

gheintze wrote on Wed, 28 July 2010 06:26


Hill and Mountain LOS issues
-- do you have LOS from one mountain to another mountain if there is an intervening hill?
According to the rules, the answer is no, but it doesn't make sense.

-- how about a unit on a mountain firing at a unit on a hill with an intervening hill hex?
Same as above.


It's not about making sense. The official rule is that if anything blocks LOS between two hexes, the units can't see each other. This is true if two units are on mountains and there is another unit between...even though the unit between would be at ground level. Check page 11 of the FAQ.

Quote:

-- can a unit on a mountain fire on a mountain that is two hexes away with an intervening mountain?
Seems that you can according to the rules.


This is basically just like hills...look at the online example for hills and you'll find your answer. Unless the mountains are connected, the units will not have LOS.



Rasmussen81 put all these questions together to maybe double the size after making sure he had official answers from RBorg. Although it seemed we got the answers in the thread, the wording for some that went in the FAQ might still be vague.

      
    
Previous Topic:Air Power card when reduced visibility rules are in play.
Next Topic:Storage/Managing Components Tips
Goto Forum: