Death to Hexes!

[Zakhal]

Im not saying its impossible, its just that the wargames that have tried out of hexes have usually bin failures and way too complex to handle.

What matrix is doing is long waited (over 10 years) second comings of our most favorite games. Thats enough for me.

Somone else can do the breakthrough hexless system.

(You could argue for CM, but that game is not traditional turnbased game)

Also point for the hexes is that weve yet to see best of them.
Theres so many things yet left to try out and do with them that there is no hurry nor reason to try and develop new systems for replacement.

[Fred98]

Three cheers for Veldor!

He can say in 3 words what takes me 3 paragraphs!

[Cap Mandrake]

Veldor;


Also check out the enticing "Road to Moscow"


http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zon ... 8/rtm.html

[Veldor]

Originally posted by Cap Mandrake
Veldor;


Also check out the enticing "Road to Moscow"


http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zon ... 8/rtm.html

Thanks for the links Cap!

At least it proves I'm not insane to think its possible or practical.. Now whether or not any of those games get it right remains to be seen... but at least we will have something unique to try out.

And forward progress...

[Zakhal]

If we ever see road to moscow come out, thats great. But its still a totally different kind of wargame and theres plenty of room for hexes.

Rather than road to moscow though, id want grigsbys next war in russia. Done with hexes and a bit panzer general style.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Death to complaining about hexes:D

Hey I have been away all weekend and I am tired to say anything better hehe.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

clean up post, just ridding a certain name here move along nothing to see.

Everyone should add a bump or something and do there part to keep our Forums looking free of annoying spam hehe.

[Klaus Deckenbac]

More Hexes!

Hexes one of the more important features in wargaming. Ok there are some good strategy games without hexes like The War Engine or others. But in wargaming hexes are mandatory. The best way to regulate movement without losing yourself in unnecessary and dangerous destracting detail.

Doing the hexes in wargames away is the first step to hell. What is the next inferior thing some guys like to propose because they think its "cool"? Real time, or what?

klaus

[Veldor]

Originally posted by Klaus Deckenbac
More Hexes!

Hexes one of the more important features in wargaming. Ok there are some good strategy games without hexes like The War Engine or others. But in wargaming hexes are mandatory. The best way to regulate movement without losing yourself in unnecessary and dangerous destracting detail.

Doing the hexes in wargames away is the first step to hell. What is the next inferior thing some guys like to propose because they think its "cool"? Real time, or what?

klaus

If you read through the detail in this thread and others you'll see in many ways its more appropriate to think of the statement as a question of hex density rather than just purely "doing away with hexes".

Hexes existed outside the computer world for a reason. In the computer world they can be much more dense. If the density is increased to a high enough degree.. It becomes irrelevant and indeed overly complex for the player to have to see them or worry about them.

So the "feeling" of hexless-ness and free movement is there though in reality "behind the scenes" there are still hexes for all the same reasons. The mention of squares, dots or pixels to replace hexes is simply because at such a high density, the advantages of the hex form over a square go away and the computer can more easily manipulate non-hex arithmetic and algorithmns than hexbased ones as well as easily calculate "behind the scenes" for diagonal movement and so on that a player never need concern themselves with.

This is all based upon appropriate tools being available in the game and an appropriate scale of game and other factors. No one system would work everywhere. The example used in this thread was Uncommon Valor where it is mostly a terrain free environment anyway and hexes have little to do with aircraft and troop movement as is. Range circles are drawn and would be a great basis for hexless movement.

Hexes have their uses, More hexes can be better, sometimes worse. I'd like to see a Naval Combat game such as Uncommon Valor that does away with hexes from a user's perspective. I like the idea of a less "gamey" interface and in moving my planes based upon mile distances, not hex distances and so on...

Keeping a closed mind on this issue prevents innovation and advancement and gives the wrong message to developers and publishers alike. If you think Im proposing every wargame becomes an RTS game then you havent really read what I've typed.

There is plenty of room for direct conversions of our favorite board wargames (I'm now working on one myself) but I see no reason why every "newly" created game for the PC has to be bound by those same characteristics.

[Klaus Deckenbac]

I dont think that it really important to have a more detailed measurement of distances than hexes. They are of course just a unprecise way to represent numerical values. But a wargame will not be more realistic if I have to care about pixels which each represents x miles or if I have them summed up to a hex which represents in about xx miles. En contraire such detail is as unrealistic as other ways to value the combat efficiency or movement allowance of units.

The mention of squares, dots or pixels to replace hexes is simply because at such a high density, the advantages of the hex form over a square go away and the computer can more easily manipulate non-hex arithmetic and algorithmns than hexbased ones as well as easily calculate "behind the scenes" for diagonal movement and so on that a player never need concern themselves with.

There are more advantages a hex gives than just better calculability of computers or reducing a players concern. Eg. everybody in this forum which has a board wargame history is used to play with hexes. He is used to think with hexes and not with dots. He knows the expressions ZOC, DRMs, adjacent and Movement Points. It is that what we want. Not pixels or calculations behind scenes. Why re-inventing the wheel? The old wheel is running well enough. The computer is just a tool to facilitate the running of a good computer translated board wargame, nothing more. Of course because of the computer usage there could be some modifications in gameplay and complexity and maybe graphics too. I am not against this. But to change one of the basics - the hex- is really going too far.

"Realtime". I mentioned it, because the most time people opt for hexless games the second thing they are for are realtime games. (which I personally hate you guessed it already- but this another thing).

You spoke from uncommon valor - I am sure not a bad game, but I did not try it, so I cannot say anything about its hexless system.

I like the idea of a less "gamey" interface and in moving my planes based upon mile distances, not hex distances and so on...

And what do you propose if your plane with 500 miles range (5000 pixels) wants to be based at an airport which is 501 miles (5010 pixels) away. Then the plane went down and crashes? Is this the game you want to play? Is this the detail you described so enthusiastically in your post?. In a normal hexbased game if the hex is in about 50 miles the plane in the above example has a range of 10 hexes. If the game designer wants he places the airport 10 or 11 hexes away. This I mean is simple. I can count the hexes then I decide if I want to travel.
"In the pixel model you can highlight the reachable area". Ok this is true. This would eliminate the crash scenario. But the range of units in move or fire is nontheless only an unprecise value in the most times. So there is absolutely nothing won in a more detailed measurement pixel system. The unit move and fire values are not 100% exact in any wargame, but you propose a 100% exact pixel measurement of move and fire. This makes no sense.

Of course you know there are alot games without hexes out there and so few games with hexes. I cannot see the point why you want to take us away these few hex-games.
Hexless game? try combat mission.

klaus

PS. sorry for my bad english

[Veldor]

Originally posted by Klaus Deckenbac
The unit move and fire values are not 100% exact in any wargame, but you propose a 100% exact pixel measurement of move and fire. This makes no sense.

I believe you are making assumptions about things I've never stated. I never asked for 100% exact movement and fire, I only asked for a "feeling" of free movement and fire. Of course a ship, tank, plane or whatever isn't going to end up at precisely where I select it too on a map(though this is more true of a tactical type game than a strategic one depending).

My discussion will be lost on you and anyone else posting here who hasn't played Uncommon Valor. The point was made in reference to that game and more specifically in reference to the range "circles" displayed. A game like UV could easily be made in a "hexless" fashion. If you've got a different game in your mind as you think about it than I can only assume for that game hexes do make the most sense.

"Real" Strategic commanders, and tactical ones for that matter.. Didnt have hexes drawn all over their planning maps. There are ways to do that and better reflect orders rendered while still maintaining the inaccuracies involved. No one is asking for some absurd level of micro-management here.

To answer your question "Why re-invent the wheel?".. Well you are free to spend your money as you will but I already have great hex based Air, Land, Sea etc games at a Strategic, Operational, and Tactical level. So why "re-release" the same old games I already have with the same old system? Id rather just play the ones I've got. New is NEW it shouldn't have to be restricted by the old ways just because someone is too stubborn to learn a new system. Learn some new tricks already

No other genre suffers from such resistance to change. Perhaps that is one of core reasons the ranks of "wargamers" can only shrink. What about new or newer players that dont already know some old way? Should they not benefit from better advancements? Or instead run away? Screw 'em? Ok nothing wrong with that attitude I guess.. But it'll still be your hobby that ultimately suffers when the companies making those hex based games you love cant stay in business any longer....

If everyone truly believed there was no better way for something to be done, nothing would ever get invented. All great advancements come from being open-minded and thinking outside the box. I realize there is a great number of diehard hex fans, but if they really represent the majority of wargamers, then why do games like Uncommon Valor show screenshots without hexes on the boxes? Well, because amongst other things they are ugly, obtrusive, boring and "un-sexy". Put a hex on a box and you immediately half the potential buying audience. That's why it's avoided when at all possible...

[Ol_Dog]

Oh yeah and pro-Microsoft. T



Just as I started to like you and your ideas

Ol'Dog

[Veldor]

Originally posted by Ol_Dog
Oh yeah and pro-Microsoft. T



Just as I started to like you and your ideas

Ol'Dog

Microsoft does so many things besides just OS-Related and Internet-Explorer related items. It's unfair to criticize the company as a whole for the over-aggressive-ness of a few. There is remarkable innovation and advancement going on there on a daily basis. For better or worse Microsoft has contributed more than any other company to the explosion of IT and the original .COM boom.

When I had the opportunity to visit their Redmond Campus I'd never been more impressed with the great attitudes, dedication, and vision that seemingly everyone in sight possessed. Even the "kids" just out of school I had to go "woah" about just about everyone of them.

Likewise Bill Gates gets a bad rap. Everything he wants and says and puts on someones to do list is based upon things needed 3 years from now. It has very little to do with money or getting a dollar tommorrow. Thats where Steve Ballmer comes in and why they make such a great duo. He's all about money money money today and tommorrow. He balanced out Bill. If anyone deserves that bad rap its Steve.. But he's necessary.

It's always been "trendy" to hate the big guy. Those that are richer or more powerful. We want to think they played unfair and that's why they have what they have... There are so many "things" a large company does if your looking for dirt your always going to find something that will make them look bad. Doesn't necessarily mean that they are. That's my take anyway

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Me I don't like Big bill, but then he plays the game by the rules. And as we wargamers are all rules lawyers, it would be hypocritical for me to gripe eh.

So Bill squash anything you can man.

But I reserve the right to let anyone squash Big Bill as well (it's a jungle out there in business).

I think by and large though, it is comical to think hexes are holding back wargaming. But I will stand beside Veldor (even though I am an annoying hex lover), because we both agree on one thing, no one is even trying to do anything different.

On the one hand we have hex games with a settings threshold. And on the other hand we have RTS games, that are getting a dull sameness to them.

I am going to love Combat Leader, but hmmm after Combat Leader, the deisgners out there better start thinking.
I only need ONE good turn based wargame at that scale and style and time period. So after Combat Leader I am more or less out of the market for that sort of game.

I don't have a lot of them (because I obviously am not a fan), but when was the last time you saw a truely different, truely unique, truely worth yet another 50+ dollars RTS game for WW2.
Just because I don't like them enough to buy them, doesn't mean I have not experienced the demos.
And because I know of a lot of the RTS crowd, I get to see the full game versions in operation eventually. So I am not talking from a zero information standpoint here.

I want a game that is truely new. No hexes maybe and no RTS silliness either. Something finally new.
Best example I can refer to is Up Front.

No not here Veldor, give me the money later, shuush people are watching.

[Veldor]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
Me I don't like Big bill, but then he plays the game by the rules. And as we wargamers are all rules lawyers, it would be hypocritical for me to gripe eh.

Well certainly can't blame you for that opinion as most share it.. But one question: When you say you don't like Big Bill is it because of the actions or because of the results? Because while the actions may not be admirable in many cases... I think the results are... And I don't mean to pull a trump card on the topic, but really the average person has been exposed to less than 5% of what Microsoft has done. Unless you've looked at the full array of Server software and Development software ontop of OS, Applications, Games and so on.. Its in these first areas where I especially think they now have their act together from a "results" standpoint.

But I will stand beside Veldor (even though I am an annoying hex lover), because we both agree on one thing, no one is even trying to do anything different.

My faith remains in Matrix in this area.

I only need ONE good turn based wargame at that scale and style and time period. So after Combat Leader I am more or less out of the market for that sort of game.

Yep. Combat Leader doesnt really even have to be innovative to sell well (But I think it will be in some if not many ways).. But after that any other game better be..

when was the last time you saw a truely different, truely unique, truely worth yet another 50+ dollars RTS game for WW2.

Not in a long time. Some people forget RTS started as a new "innovative" wargaming style. But because it was so new, rather than continue to innovate everyone just copied the one or two games that were out there. Now its a whole new genre that never even existed before...

I want a game that is truely new. No hexes maybe and no RTS silliness either. Something finally new.
Best example I can refer to is Up Front.

Yes with all the board wargames I owned, Up Front really blew me away not just because it was so incredibly different and unique in just about every way... But because the system worked well, gave a whole new "unique" feel while you played it, and was just simply a blast to play.

No not here Veldor, give me the money later, shuush people are watching.

Checks in the mail! Just remember 10% of nothing is nothing!

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

What do I hate about Bill?

Hmmm

Ok he is rich as sin and has never given me a damned dime.

Bill I hate you man!

[Veldor]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
What do I hate about Bill?

Hmmm

Ok he is rich as sin and has never given me a damned dime.

Bill I hate you man!

Hey at least your being honest!

I forget which Railroad Tycoon it was but Bill Gates donated more money in one year than that Tycoon had made in his entire lifetime.

It is kind of odd though you generally don't here about his donations.

I still think it's possible to write a convincing enough letter for him to drop a million dollars on you. It's about like you dropping a penny if even that.

But to a kid in Africa that penny buys a week of food (Ok well assuming a small diet).. And likewise to you that million you could in turn give to Matrix for a lifetime supply of great computer wargames!!!

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Hmmm interesting.

Wierd enough to even work.

We all write Bill and ask him to give us say 1000 bucks (hey a million is nice but 1000 he makes in the time it takes to go to the washroom).

We all get 1000 bucks and use it to buy Matrix games.

We all get all of Matrix's games, and Matrix, thanks to a spastic influx of money, are able to develope wargames even if some of the notions are a bit unusual and non traditional.

And we all promise to tell Bill publicly on forums that he is really a supporter of cutting edge military simulations.

And with that, he gains an edge with the US military (thanks to our endorsing him) to make training software, and likely actually makes more money than he gives us.