From: Denver Colorado
Swamps were definitely overpowered for defence in the last patch.
Weak soviet divisions who were not dug in could hold stacks of attacking armour.
The developers found a bug where swamp was doubling defending CV. This has been changed, which is good.
The main issue remaining is mechanised movement in swamps. This should be much higher. As should heavy forrest. The poster from Sweden is on the money: these are serious wildernesses, unlike anything in Western Europe, that make the ardennes look like an English garden.
Light woods and rough hexes should represent marginal/mixed swamp and forrest. Swamp and heavy woods should be practically impassible to armoured units (perhaps other than along rr, but even then it should be slow). Its probably about right for infantry.
And the idea for extra attrition in swamp is good, and has been suggested before.
In the presence of enemy ZOC, heavy woods would be a large problem. You'd be restricted to roads and small combat power could significantly impede movement speed.
However, outside of enemy ZOC, you should move fine, presumably in column formation on decent roads.
And if we're going to get all persnickety about terrain and realism, then we should be arguing for bridges across major rivers, and decreased movement costs when moving along a railroad path.
Personally I'm not ready to change swamps since the patch fixed the doubling of CV. I think perhaps many Soviet players are forgetting how limited a 50% TOE Soviet rifle division's force projection is in a 10-mile area. I play both sides, and when a Soviet rifle division with good TOE (75% plus) and average (for Soviet) morale gets a level 1 fort, it's still well more than a speed bump.
Summer 2017-Playing: D-Day at Omaha Beach, Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Kampfgruppe Walther & Panzerbrigade 107 (Magnificent). Lots of Osprey stuff.
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL)