Range-Melee Bias in Maps

[Marduk]

A symetrical map can still be unbalanced vis-a-vis melee versus ranged units, let alone one that is asymetrical. So what constitutes an advantage for a ranged unit, and what gives an advantage to a melee unit?

I am hoping to get decent guidelines together to speed rejection of unsuitable maps for my tournament. I am not worried about small imbalances on a single map; provided the maps include a fair mix of those small imbalances and none have any large factors favoring one type of army or another I will consider the tournament maps as a whole to be balanced. I will list the features that come to mind for me; hopefully anything I miss will come out in discussion.

Difficult terrain - This can be lots of elevation differences, water, molten lava, heavy snow, slippery ice, and castle walls. Difficult terrain favors ranged units by limiting the ability of melee units to get at them. The typical counter for this is to include LoS blockers so that melee units have places to shelter while approaching the ranged units.

My feeling on this is that a ranged unit should always be able to get at least one shot at a melee unit of 'typical' speed before the melee unit can engage them. Two shots is acceptable, though it inclines the balance slightly towards the ranged unit. Three shots before engagement might be all right for a high-range unit against a very slow melee unit, but I would like to generally avoid that kind of situation. Assuming they started just out of range, even the Knights of Weston could move 16 in the time you get three shots at them... move 4, you shoot, move 4, you shoot, move 4, you shoot, move 4 and attack. Even against Deadeye Dan's range of 10, it would be some really horrible terrain to make you spend that much extra movement covering the distance.

Choke points - Related to difficult terrain, choke points favor ranged attackers both by limiting the routes melee troops can take and by allowing a force to easily block and delay the enemy advance. If you block the only bridge for a couple of turns, even if you are sacrificing a couple of ranged units to do it, that is a couple of turns you can shoot at whatever enemy figures are standing around waiting for the blockage to be cleared.

If you must have choke points, have more than one ('next' to each other, not one after another) so that a melee force has options. Do not set up any convenient "sniper's nests" that have clear LoS to more than one choke point. Otherwise the ranged units will just park there and be able to block multiples just as effectively as they could a single one. If the ranged army can set up a sniping position at and manage to block each one, at least the melee army has the choice of trying to force all of them or concentrating on one in hopes of getting a clear path through.

High elevations - Large elevation differences that can prevent melee units from engaging ranged units are bad. Since there are a lot of melee units with a height of four, any elevation change of four or more from one hex to another needs to be carefully considered. Counters for this vary from not having any such elevation differences to placing alternate routes to the high points that have lesser height differentials.

For example, a sniper's position may have three hex-sides facing the enemy that prevent them from engaging unless they are rather tall. But the other hex-sides may have a gentler slope leading up to it, and a melee unit can simply run around to the back and go up that way. In the same way as with difficult terrain, you need to limit the typical number of 'free shots' the ranged unit can take before being engaged.

Large maps - Maps that allow too much room for ranged units to run away and shoot, keeping the range open for a longer time, hurt melee units. Melee units have, on average, about 0.25 higher move numbers than ranged units (though it is a little higher if you do not include the fliers). With that small a movement advantage, it can take a lifetime to catch up to a fleeing ranged unit. Fortunately tournament maps such as I am considering are not usually very large, because of time constraints and the corresponding 'small' army sizes. But in the event you are using a large map, you should consider how to counter this advantage of ranged units. Part of the trouble here is that any terrain that the ranged unit retreats across is the same terrain that the melee units then have to cross.

Unfortunately the difficult terrain guidelines for placing LoS blockers are less useful here - the only two concerns a retreating ranged unit has are staying out of reach of the melee unit and having LoS to it from their new position. A ranged unit has only to move in such a way as to avoid the LoS blockers, where the melee units had to concern themselves with staying under cover as much as possible on the approach. If you place enough cover to prevent a retreating ranged unit from shooting at the oncoming melee units most of the time, you are introducing a melee-biased condition: clutter.

Clutter - Terrain features or objects that block lines of sight favor melee units. After all, you have to know where to shoot if you expect to hit anything. Something to note - many of the larger units are less affected by LOS blockers, since they can often see over such things. And you need quite a terrain feature (like a double-height castle wall) to block LOS to something like Su-Bak-Na. Too much clutter can bog games down since even melee units will need to spend more movement going around the obstacles, so you need to be careful. And too much clutter could also end up favoring melee troops too heavily.

The guidelines for difficult terrain should apply here as well; after all, clutter is melee's version of it. You might allow a viper squad to cross the distance from cover to engagement without getting shot on the way, but they do pay for that nice movement. In general a melee unit should require two turns of momvent to get from cover to engagement with a ranged squad in a logical position. Usually this will mean leaving six to ten movement worth of distance and elevation changes (or a few movement worth with a one-hex waterway in there) from a sizable bit of cover to a good spot for ranged troops. The amount may vary based on extra distance squad members have to travel to get clear of the cover.

One of the four-hex trees may need to be a more distant than a ruin, say, since figures can travel around both sides of the tree with no extra movement required for one or the other. Some of the figures taking cover behind a ruin, on the other hand, will often have to travel a couple of hexes just to leave that cover. Something else to be careful about... you should not force an advancing army to be strung out in a single-file line on a regular basis. Not only is it too easy to block them (this applies to a ranged force's LoS as well), it is detrimental to certain units that rely on formation for their special powers. For example, the Roman units with their Shield Wall and Arrow Volley powers, or any of the adjacency powers like the viking hero auras.


Well, that is all I can come up with at the moment. Factors I took into account when trying to decide what made for an advantage one way of the other included: relative movement values (melee has a trival edge here, so it was hardly worth considering aside from obstacle spacing), relative power of ranged units to melee (melee are stronger point for point, but not by a lot - running qutie a few numbers convinced me that the difference is usually the equivalent of one or two shots by the ranged unit), and typical figure heights (for LoS, elevation changes, and engagement purposes). If you think any other factors are relevant or that these factors can be used to create more guidelines or further refine those listed, I would love to hear about it.

[Hedge Knight]

This is good reading for any map maker! Very well considered analysis.

You didn't mention flying though. It might just be because each section could be followed with "except for flying characters, who can ignore this and just go where they want."

Also, road tiles can tip the scales slightly towards melee units. It depends how they are used, but a tree-lined road can provide both cover and a movement boost to bring melee units into the action. My map Bridges was kind of based on this idea (shameless self-promotion ).

For your tournament, are you going with the "1 MS and one boxed terrain expansion" model?

[rehlers]

Thanks for the good analysis for melee / ranged advantages on a map. I am always looking for maps that help large swarms of melee units, as I enjoy playing with them. I like maps that feature a nice flat area at some point on the map.

[Eclipse]

Good analysis overall. I do think you hsould mention the road/snow thing. Roads are perhaps one of the best means to balance out the ranged advantage in my opinion. Yes, they help ranged units as well, but the fact that a 7 range unit can only get one shot off against even the Knights of Weston before being attacked puts the game much closer towards the "range gets one attack, maybe two" range. On a side note, the Venoc Vipers MUST be able to go from cover to attacking in one move or they're essentially worthless. They might Frenzy and make up the difference, but Frenzy isn't really worth the 25% chance for movement alone. Snow, of course, is the exact opposite of Roads in this equation. Snow will almost always let range have a field day with advancing troops.

1 MS maps generally shouldn't worry too much about the ranged advantage. You can certainly design a range dominant map, but the lack of running room and major elevation changes make it hard to really cause problems. That doesn't mean its not impossible, but its definitely harder. Larger maps naturally seem to give range a huge advantage overall. In my experience, when working with large maps, there's simply no such thing as a melee biased. You really have to actively work to keep ranged units from being too strong.

Part of the problem is that cover isn't really the range stopper it should be in most cases. Because ranged units get to move before they attack, its often quite difficult to block LOS from every position a ranged squad can move to. Even when cover is achieved, it hampers your abiltiy to reach the ranged unit. A single hex tree slows you by one movement point, and ruins can slow you by even more. Most things that limit range trade off by giving them somehting else in return and clutter as a general rule, tends to create choke points for snipers to watch. The only thing that I've found to truly give melee an edge is roads personally.

In the end, Clutter doesn't really create a melee biased in my experience, it simply makes positioning more interesting for both sides. Melee units have to pay close attention to the LOS lines on the map, and move to locations that are covered as best as possible. Ranged units are forced out of their "Wait then fire" (part of the reason the 4th Mass seem so dominant to people) positioning. No large map should make things so easy on range that they don't have to actively seek proper LOS and are able to just stand in one spot and kill things without retaliation. Such maps are rarely exciting for either side.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Hedge Knight

You didn't mention flying though. It might just be because each section could be followed with "except for flying characters, who can ignore this and just go where they want."

I feel the consequences of terrain on flying are a lot more obvious, and a bit outside the scope I had in mind. In my opinion, since flyers are all melee aside from a few special powers (dragons) their slightly slower speed and much larger target zones make up for their ability to ignore terrain. At least as far as the range-melee balance goes. If anyone disagrees I would like to hear why; the only serious trouble I see with flying units is the ability to get somewhere they are completely safe from melee attack.

On maps I design, I intend to make sure that there are no places that is possible, and also that there are no places a single-spaced ranged figure can go to be completely safe from a double-spaced melee figure. Though I will rely on the ability of the player to eventually corner the single-spaced ranged figure if it keeps running.

Also, road tiles can tip the scales slightly towards melee units. It depends how they are used, but a tree-lined road can provide both cover and a movement boost to bring melee units into the action.

A good point, brought up in more detail by Eclipse also. Sort of the opposite of difficult terrain.

For your tournament, are you going with the "1 MS and one boxed terrain expansion" model?

Generally one master set (plus or minus a bit, perhaps) and one or two expansions. I am less concerned about the terrain requirements of the battlefields since I plan to have about 20 master sets by tournament time (eleven now), and Startoker said he could provide some if needed. The map details do still need to be ironed out, and it depends a lot on the number attending. I am expecting 20 to 30 to show up, meaning 10 to 15 maps.

However, I do want almost all the maps I design to conform to the 'Best of' guidelines. The reasoning behind the terrain limits is sound for a tournament setting, and the limits keep the size managable. The smallest of the tables available for the tournament is 48" by 72", which should be enough to accomodate two tournament-standard maps without a problem. I will be keeping this restriction in mind when selecting maps, of course.

Originally Posted by Eclipse

I do think you hsould mention the road/snow thing. Roads are perhaps one of the best means to balance out the ranged advantage in my opinion. Yes, they help ranged units as well, but the fact that a 7 range unit can only get one shot off against even the Knights of Weston before being attacked puts the game much closer towards the "range gets one attack, maybe two" range.

Yes, I missed out on roads. You do need to be careful about their placement, though. I am generally against putting glyphs on or at the end of roads, if only to encourage people to use all of the battlefield. Hmm, just had ideas for a Scavenger Hunt scenario and a Snipe Hunt scenario.

I think that on smaller maps it is a bad idea to put road hexes in the starting zone with a road leading across the map. It reduces the usefulness of other parts of the battlefield when the obvious move is to race to the best terrain next to the road, or to keep charging into your enemy's start zone. A road that meandered (along the lines of a tilted 'S' shape) might work well enough, or one with a break in the middle.

Snow, of course, is the exact opposite of Roads in this equation. Snow will almost always let range have a field day with advancing troops.

Covered under difficult terrain... you just have to keep the movement penalty in mind when figuring the movement cost from one place to another.

On a side note, the Venoc Vipers MUST be able to go from cover to attacking in one move or they're essentially worthless. They might Frenzy and make up the difference, but Frenzy isn't really worth the 25% chance for movement alone.

I do not agree with this - they are very cheap units, after all, and there are ways to provide your own cover if you need it, such as running a squad of Arnocs ahead first to engage. Let's look at the units with a move of seven or higher:

Arnoc Vipers 7
Deathstalkers 7
Elite Onyx Vipers 7 (who are nigh-invulnerable to attacks at range anyway)
Gorillinators 7
Me-Burq-Sa 8
Nerak the Glacian Swog Rider 8
Shades of Bleakewoode 7
Swog Rider 8
Theracus 7
Tornak 7
Venoc Vipers 7
Venoc Warlord 7

While I do not have a problem with a spot or two that allow units with a movement of seven to get from cover to engagement in one move, I have to say it should not be the rule.

1 MS maps generally shouldn't worry too much about the ranged advantage. You can certainly design a range dominant map, but the lack of running room and major elevation changes make it hard to really cause problems. That doesn't mean its not impossible, but its definitely harder. Larger maps naturally seem to give range a huge advantage overall. In my experience, when working with large maps, there's simply no such thing as a melee biased. You really have to actively work to keep ranged units from being too strong.

From what I have seen so far, it is easy to skew the bias towards ranged units simply by trying to add visual interest to a map. A high point here or there to break up the board a bit, without careful consideration of the consequences, can easily give rise to a "sniper's nest" area that gives ranged units a notable advantage for turtling behavior. Particularly since those sorts of places also seem to be the preferred location for glyphs.

Glyphs are another concern - I believe that if a glyph is in a large open area, it should be level with the surrounding terrain. That avoids giving a ranged unit two terrain-based advantages while holding onto the glyph: a height advantage and the opportunity to shoot at approaching figures before they can engage. Although you could also argue that it denies a melee unit the compensation of height while a ranged unit sits and shoots at it. Ah well, no plan is perfect. Glyphs in sheltered areas probably should have a height advantage to make up for the ability of melee units to close without getting shot on the way.

An alternative is to put glyphs in sheltered areas at lower elevations - that makes it easier for any kind of unit to take the glyph away from someone else. If you want high turnover rates for the glyphs, and to encourage glyphs to be the focus of most battles, this is probably the way to go. If anyone with more experience would like to chime in on this, please do so - I have only played with glyphs at a single tournament and may view them differently from people who play with them on a regular basis.

Part of the problem is that cover isn't really the range stopper it should be in most cases. Because ranged units get to move before they attack, its often quite difficult to block LOS from every position a ranged squad can move to. Even when cover is achieved, it hampers your abiltiy to reach the ranged unit. A single hex tree slows you by one movement point, and ruins can slow you by even more. Most things that limit range trade off by giving them somehting else in return and clutter as a general rule, tends to create choke points for snipers to watch. The only thing that I've found to truly give melee an edge is roads personally.

One of the good points I see about a small degree of extra movement required by cover is that you will often end up with half of your melee squad engaged with half of their ranged squad. That helps move the balance more to the middle of 'one or two shots before engagement'. If they get one shot with their squad against you, then you get to attack them with half of your guys, then they get to shoot again with the survivors before you can engage the rest, that does not seem to be too bad.

You are certainly right about having to watch for choke points created by cover. If there are such choke points, you at least need to counter it by giving alternate routes so that a melee unit can go around instead of through. Better still, move the cover around to eliminate the choke points.

In the end, Clutter doesn't really create a melee biased in my experience, it simply makes positioning more interesting for both sides. Melee units have to pay close attention to the LOS lines on the map, and move to locations that are covered as best as possible. Ranged units are forced out of their "Wait then fire" (part of the reason the 4th Mass seem so dominant to people) positioning. No large map should make things so easy on range that they don't have to actively seek proper LOS and are able to just stand in one spot and kill things without retaliation. Such maps are rarely exciting for either side.

I should have been more clear as to what I mean by clutter - I am envisioning a *large* amount of LoS blockers, enough to make it difficult to keep squads together. This level of clutter is probably not an issue since it makes for ugly maps, but was something that occured to me.

It is hard to account for is the ability of the ranged unit to run away and shoot - but if the cover is placed correctly it will also slow the ranged units or prevent them from both getting a shot at the melee troops and staying out of range of a charge. Most ranged units suffer a bit more from being split up; it often prevents them from concentrating fire on a single target. And the slight average speed advantage of melee units may make a difference here as well.

As I said before, you should not force the advancing units to end up strung out and unable to support one another on a regular basis. But forcing someone to make a choice between maintaining an aura group while getting shot again or leaving the aura advantage but getting some figures into engagement should not hurt if you only do it in one or two places.

[Homba]

Nice comments. I'm with you on using terrain (and, sometimes, scenario rules: darkness, mist, rain) to balance the range/melee situation. Melee thrives (and range wilts) in what I call "close terrain," and I think you're calling "cluttered terrain" -- where LOS is limited to 5 or 6 max (more often 3-ish), no matter where you stand. Trees, ruins, glaciers, castle walls (with no wall walk top, or a rule that says you just can't land there -- same for abrupt, mesa-like cliffs) are all great for this.

Couple of configurations I like.

(1) Flat map with a labyrinth of close terrain starting just beyond each side's start zone, connecting on the sides, but with an (approx.) 10x10 open area in the center (probably with a glyph in the center of it).

(2) A mixed terrain map, at least 30 hexes wide, at least 30 long. On the left, a rolling hill or two, generally open, favors range. On the right, flat, close terrain all the way down, favors melee. In the center, a mixture (but no killer overlook from the range-friendly area). A glyph in the middle of each of these terrain types. Whoever controls the majority of glyphs at the end of the Round limit wins (if neither side is destroyed). Optionally, you can add an immobile flag in either side's start zone that they must retain or lose the game.

H

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Homba

I'm with you on using terrain (and, sometimes, scenario rules: darkness, mist, rain) to balance the range/melee situation.

I had considered a more open terrain with rules for fog, but reducing the range of a ranged unit really is a tremendous change. As things stand, the range numbers have a bit of an advantage over the movement numbers, but not by a great margin. If you reduce the range by two, even the sluggish Knights of Weston would be able to engage most ranged units without allowing a shot on the way if the ground were flat. You would have to have difficult terrain to balance things out and it just gets harder to balance the competing effects.

I am personally biased towards a mix of melee and ranged. I think that in general tournament maps should share my bias, as the most fair way to accomodate people who prefer melee units as well as those who prefer ranged units.

Melee thrives (and range wilts) in what I call "close terrain," and I think you're calling "cluttered terrain" -- where LOS is limited to 5 or 6 max (more often 3-ish), no matter where you stand.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant by cluttered.

(1) Flat map with a labyrinth of close terrain starting just beyond each side's start zone, connecting on the sides, but with an (approx.) 10x10 open area in the center (probably with a glyph in the center of it).

One of my map ideas is Trenches, set up like a World War I battlefield. That problem with it is that I am aiming for one-on-one tournament maps, and it takes a lot of terrain to build up the five, six, or seven levels needed over most of the map. Plus, it would end up being a nightmare for double-space figures and likely be very biased against ranged units (as trenches were indeed supposed to be).

Another worry with it is the chance that it would actually turn out to be biased against melee. Trenches would inhibit adjacency auras, which generally favor melee, and limit clear LoS for the other auras. If the trenches are deep enough to conceal melee units, they are also deep enough to prevent engagement. Trenches in HeroScape would be proportionally wider than the real-life version, and so not limit LoS as much. Particularly as the figures would not be able to press up against the near side for better cover. I will have to see about playtesting with an all-melee army against an all- or nearly all-ranged army. Hopefully I can do it this Friday.

(2) A mixed terrain map, at least 30 hexes wide, at least 30 long. On the left, a rolling hill or two, generally open, favors range. On the right, flat, close terrain all the way down, favors melee. In the center, a mixture (but no killer overlook from the range-friendly area). A glyph in the middle of each of these terrain types. Whoever controls the majority of glyphs at the end of the Round limit wins (if neither side is destroyed). Optionally, you can add an immobile flag in either side's start zone that they must retain or lose the game.

The problem I see here is that unless both sides field the same kind of army all the real conflict will occur in the middle. If I am running a melee army and currently have the melee-biased side and the central area, I am already winning and have no real incentive to send my units to fight at a severe disadvantage against the ranged units. The same thing applies in reverse to a ranged army. In effect you are reducing the need for balanced terrain to a smaller area, but you are also reducing the real play area.

[Homba]

Rules for dark, rain, fog, wouldn't be my first choice for a tournament map either. Any reduction in range is going to be a big swing to melee units as you observe. On occasion, this is a fun twist that can dramatically change the relative value of the units (more or less, depending on the severity of the sight limitation).

On the "three strips of terrain" setup. People bringing a "balanced" army will have units capable of excelling in each area. If you do bring an all-melee or melee-heavy army (for example), your strategy will be to lock up the close terrain, and spar for the middle, yes. Either side has the option to break through and take the flag as well. Concentration of force in a favored location is often a promising tactic, there's no existential imperative that the entire map see action. But I see your point. My taste for this sort of map may be from playing almost exclusively team games, where there are always enough units with enough diversity to challenge each area (with a threat to the flag always in the offing if one area is not contested - so there's a motivation to at least block an unfavored area).

H

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Homba

On the "three strips of terrain" setup. People bringing a "balanced" army will have units capable of excelling in each area. If you do bring an all-melee or melee-heavy army (for example), your strategy will be to lock up the close terrain, and spar for the middle, yes. Either side has the option to break through and take the flag as well. Concentration of force in a favored location is often a promising tactic, there's no existential imperative that the entire map see action. But I see your point.

A balanced army is still going to be at a disadvantage against an imbalanced one in the terrain that favors that form of army. Though if both players brought balanced armies, this form of map should work much better.

My taste for this sort of map may be from playing almost exclusively team games, where there are always enough units with enough diversity to challenge each area (with a threat to the flag always in the offing if one area is not contested - so there's a motivation to at least block an unfavored area).

Yes, I think team games can change the map effects quite a bit. Unfortunately I have very little experience with team games in HS, but I am under the impression that a team game does help (a little) to balance melee with ranged units. Using two or more sets of troops with two or more sets of order markers makes catching, isolating and destroying a given ranged unit somewhat easier.

[Eclipse]

I think that on smaller maps it is a bad idea to put road hexes in the starting zone with a road leading across the map. It reduces the usefulness of other parts of the battlefield when the obvious move is to race to the best terrain next to the road, or to keep charging into your enemy's start zone. A road that meandered (along the lines of a tilted 'S' shape) might work well enough, or one with a break in the middle.

The problem with this type of road is that more often than not it makes the road itself non-functional. If the road does not get from point A to point B faster than ignoring it, then it's not really a feature of the terrain at all. I've seen this far too man times, where a road is only ~5 hexes long, essentially providing no bonus what so ever.

I do agree with your meaning, however. Maps that have the road that connects the starting zones really tend to lead to straight charges and rather boring conflicts. Having roads several (3 or more) hexes wide makes combat far more interesting. Also, making sure there are advantages to the surrounding terrain really helps as well. Wolf Swamp Road is a great example of a map that provides excellent flanking and ambush options to keep the rest of the map interesting.

I am personally biased towards a mix of melee and ranged. I think that in general tournament maps should share my bias, as the most fair way to accomodate people who prefer melee units as well as those who prefer ranged units.

I too, have a bit of a bias towards forcing the units to work together. I think the best maps are the ones that force melee and range to work together to produce the best results. In my experience, this seems to happen on extremely cluttered maps with heavy choke points. The reason for this is pretty simple. The cover and lack of LOS makes it very hard for range to get their maximum effectiveness. Getting LOS for one or two squad members is easy, but all 3-4 is rare. Melee units can usually rush range and take them out if you bring yourself out in the open enough to maximize your shots. At the same time, melee units struggle against other melee units. It's hard with heavy choke points to get multiple melee squads adjacent to do big damage.

Instead, the two need to work together. Melee needs to clog up the choke points, making a screen to protect range from the enemy melee units. Meanwhile, Range needs to use their breathing room to attack with full power. Obviously, this can grow stale rather quickly, so its also imprtant to have multiple pathways and choke points, which can give you the potential for interesitng movement options. Any map that allows you to attack the opponent from several directions gets my approval. Granted, most of the above takes more than one MS and expansion, but they're the most fun for me.

[Marduk]

I had hoped for rather more in the way of discussion, but perhaps I did a better job than I thought. The comments have been good ones; thanks to those who have helped.

I have not yet had the opportunity to test my Trenches map, but it really does take a lot of terrain to do properly so it is not a likely tournament map. Poking around with it in VirtualScape I have the impression that it is reasonably well-balanced between range and melee, but clever manuevering helps the ranged units more than it does the melee troops. I will post it once I do have a chance to play on it.

Originally Posted by Eclipse

The problem with this type of road is that more often than not it makes the road itself non-functional. If the road does not get from point A to point B faster than ignoring it, then it's not really a feature of the terrain at all. I've seen this far too man times, where a road is only ~5 hexes long, essentially providing no bonus what so ever.

Yes, at an absolute minimum a road must be six hexes long to provide an advantage. If you can call it that; one bonus move to one figure with the lowest movement number in the game does not really mean much. I would say that a road section should be at least eight hexes long, and better still ten or twelve. Remember that for an entire squad to get the benefit at once, there must be enough road for them to all fit on, plus enough more for them to be able to travel at least one more hex than their normal movement.

Say you have a squad of Arnoc Vipers you want to rush along the road. Three figures means three road spaces just so they can all start out on the road, plus seven more road spaces for their normal movement, plus more road spaces to allow for the road bonus movement. That is eleven road spaces to be able to give the squad one bonus movement; 13 road hexes in order to let them get the full benefit of being on a road. And even that assumes that they are starting all the way at one end and going all the way to the other.

This is where my 'meandering road' comes in. On a typical tournament map, you have between 12 and 20 hexes of space separating the two starting zones; most common seem to be 16- or 18-hex gaps. If you have a 13-hex road extending straight out, that nearly bridges the gap by itself. But if the road angles, you can place more road hexes without getting all the way to the other side. And if you have notable elevation changes elsewhere, the road is still a viable route even with the indirect path.

Imagine, if you will, a road that extends from the middle of your start zone, angling to the right as it goes across the map. Likewise, a similar road extends from the enemy start zone angling to your left as it approaches you. About two-thirds of the way to the opposing start zone (and two-thirds of the way to yours), the road curves and leads directly to the other turn. Put some elevated land at the ends of these curves, and have trees and ruins for cover there and along the middle of the road. This gives you a good place to go using the road - a decent strongpoint that threatens your enemy's start zone. However, you also have to worry that the foe will use the mirrored position against you, so you may want to start by seizing it. The road between these two strong points gives you ample ability to mount an attack from one to the other. Meanwhile, troops of either side can walk across the regular terrain and cover that middle stretch of road; either interdicting travel along it, or simply marching across and around to flank one of the strongpoints.

You end up with a long road that, while it connects the two start zones, does not lead directly between them. It provides options for moving your forces, and gives you a reason to visit most of the board (leaving the road as the lowest height feature means people will also seek elevation advantages off the road). If enemy ranged units occupy one of the strongpoints at the curve, even the slowest units can use the road bonus to limit the number of free shots; but because the road bonus only applies to road travel, even the fastest units are likely to have to pause on the way and give their ranged enemies the requisite one free shot.