Death to Hexes!

Cap Mandrake · Post by **Cap Mandrake** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 7:30 am

Hey.....what about alternating patterns of Octagons and Squares? Good Lord, sometimes I scare myself.........now where did I put that number to the patent office?

pasternakski · Post by **pasternakski** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 7:30 am

So, your bottom line is that you want miniatures-based wargames converted to computer format, and I have no business commenting here if I am offended by your characterization of me as a dinosaur.

Okay. Next thread.

Veldor · Post by **Veldor** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 7:32 am

Originally posted by Ludovic Coval
Without wish to (re-)enter in a discussion about hexes, I think that a computer hex map need a *lot* of work and surely not lazziness. If you have some skill in computer development let's have a try...

LC.

Hmm.. Perhaps poor choice of wording on my part. There is tremendous amount of skill and effort that goes into a computer wargame's development. I suppose its more a left-brain right-brain thing I was refering too. Lots of technical ability, but not quite the "creativity" that some other genres experience.

RTS games suffer the same criticism from me at present. Age of Empires/Command & Conquer. One system for almost every game ever since... Little innovation or advancement. Sure some are better than others.. (Empire Earth is my personal favorite) but they all are built from the same mold.

Does that make Empire Earth or Command & Conquer:Generals bad games? No, not at all. Does it make the programmers less talented, the artists less skilled... no and no... But it does make whoever is responsible for the overall game mechanics a bit lazy...

So I'm not insulting anyone's beloved games. I love UV as much as the next guy. I have as already stated a long lengthy list of hex-based boardgames I'd love to see converted to hex-based computer games..

But all of that really has nothing to do with the idea I posted for an altogether "NEW" type of innovative computer wargame.

Encouraging such doesn't make me automatically against everything and everyone else.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 7:43 am

I vote computer Up Front, no map at all, and expansions to allow it to go modern as well as reverse back to Civil War and Napoleonic.

I like the game enough my cards are all worn. Computer cards always stay nice and fresh.

Veldor · Post by **Veldor** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 7:46 am

Originally posted by pasternakski
So, your bottom line is that you want miniatures-based wargames converted to computer format, and I have no business commenting here if I am offended by your characterization of me as a dinosaur.

Dear Mr. Pasternakski,

It is interesting that you are so offended to a post I made in a thread in which you had made no prior posting whatsoever and therefore anything I possibly said could not have in any way been directed towards you. Interesting too is your complaint to wording and statements I've never even made to anyone such as your "dinosaur" comment.

There are no "buried" insults in any of my opinions or statements. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the ideas that myself and at least a few others have for alternative systems to hexes for movement regulation and other related items. Any statement boldly supporting my opinion is no different than any boldly opposing it.

Okay. Next thread.

Please, by all means, move on. Stay out of threads I start if all you have to contribute is "wah wah he called me a name" Especially when I haven't done any such thing...

Veldor · Post by **Veldor** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 7:52 am

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
I vote computer Up Front, no map at all, and expansions to allow it to go modern as well as reverse back to Civil War and Napoleonic.

I like the game enough my cards are all worn. Computer cards always stay nice and fresh.

Up Front, Miniature games, and later-generation area movement based games are all examples of non-hex based "alternative" wargames that worked. I think hexes were superior for board wargames but success of other systems shows it is possible to think "outside the box" when designing wargames.

That doesn't mean my answer to the next great computer wargame is some direct miniature game port... It just means that given the power of computers, its even MORE possible to do something better than hexes.

But yeah either way a direct UP Front port would be cool. There is a system that partially ported Up Front to the pc and you can play over the internet..

http://home.uchicago.edu/~rullfig/upfront/

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 8:17 am

Cool had never seen that before Veldor.

Nyrkki · Post by **Nyrkki** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 1:46 pm

Most people here tend to be content with hexes, or at least not discontent. This is propably the reason game developers are using them. Producing computer games is a financial risk and from a business point of view it doesn't make any sense to add to the risk by making design decisions that the gamers might not like.

Hexes will be replaced only if someone decides to take the risk and just do it. If the game is a big succes, a bunch of new games using the same system (whatever it is) will follow, if it's a failure you will never again see a game of that design. If it's true that most game developers are all the time one failure away from bankruptcy, who would be willing to take a risk like that?

So what would I like to see instead of hexes? Well, in a real world, units are assigned areas of operations or responsibility sectors. Depending on deployment and misson the same unit might cover a very narrow but deep area, for instance a unit on a delay mission along a road or a broad but narrow front. Also the troop density would depend on the size of area of operations. For instance if the area given would be too large it would be more difficult be succesfull i a defence mission. Alike, attacking with a too narrow front would leed to additional casulties.

I'm only dreaming off course. I have no programming experience, so I can't even guess how difficult this would be to implement. One of my former colleagues used to say: "anything is possible with unlimited time and money", so the bottom line in this case is: is it feasible?

Nyrkki

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 7:12 pm

Hexes impart a basic stylised terrain. Nothing more, nothing less.

In the real world of course, terrain is far messier. It doesn't do anything consistent.

Try designing a game where every single point of the entire map is given custom data. That's what you are asking for. It's about the most "unrealistic request of the whole debate.

Walk out into the woods. You are a rifleman of an infantry unit. Do you crouch behind this tree or that one. One tree is a conifer, the other an oak. The conifer is also on a slope of ground 10 feet higher. The Oak is next to a large boulder.
This level of detail can get fairly insane.
Your squad leader says move out. Do you go left up that rise of ground, or right through that cleft in the ground.

Do you honestly wish to be given the task of rendering that game map?

Scale it up to the next level. Company or battalion. Same hassles, differing examples. The terrain won't be any more cooperative.
Keep scaling up, you will notice mother nature never does anything twice. Every square inch every mile, the whole planet is just one big inconsistency.

Wargaming though requires rules, order out of the chaos.
So we set thressholds, tolerance levels.
Is that 1 mile by 1 mile region more woods than open ground?
Is the river move over here than over there.

Hexes enforce those tolerance levels. Yes they are sometimes annoyingly obvious about it. It is easier to decide the merit of the armour slope on a t-34 vs pak 50 ammo, than it is to decide how many trees qualifies as a hindrance to optimum cruising speed.

So while a computer can handle vast sums of data, are YOU going to provide that vast sum of data. Don't look at me eh, I won't be coding those maps with insane data bases of data to which your unit will wander across.
I will stick with a tree hex means you lose X speed increments.

It's vast, its easy, it's CONSISTENT, its FAIR. it's UNBIASED, and it works.
And the fact there are no hexes out in your backyard or neighbourhood has absolutely nothing to do with it.

There are a lot of things missing in wargames actually.

The smell of the dead and the dying.
The screams and the yelling of the dying and soon to be dead.
The panic and the chaotic noise.
The confusion, the indecision.
The total destruction and the carnage.
The strain, fatigue, the lonliness and the fear over ever present death.

Thank god I can only think about all those horrors.

Nyrkki · Post by **Nyrkki** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 7:30 pm

Besides daydreaming, that was the actual point I was trying to make:

Using hexes work quite well, even if it is an abstraction of reality. It simply does't seem worth the hassle to create a more accurate system (which still would be an abstraction). If I was a top programmer maybe I'd take on the challenge. But I'm not and even if I were; I doubt anyone would be ready to finance my attempt. That was my point.

Nyrkki

Cap Mandrake · Post by **Cap Mandrake** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 8:24 pm

Veldor;

Check out the Airborne Assault demo....the map resolution is down to tens of meters I believe.....orders are issued with point and click...and there are no hexes to be found!

http://www.avault.com/pcrl/demo_temp.as ... airassault

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:25 pm

Hexes not visible, does not imply the absence of hexes.

You can switch off the hex grid in Steel Panthers eh. Doesn't mean they are not there.

But I recently tried the Airborne Assault demo, looks pleasing on the surface.
I like the look of the counters. I like the way it ran.

I can't go on about it much though, very limited exposure.

rbrunsman · Post by **rbrunsman** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:08 pm

Veldor: I think your comments to me were what could have been construed as derogatory, but I took no offense. I asked a question and got an answer, no problem.

My concern was mostly addressed by Les's excellent recent explaination, but I will attempt to ellaborate in my own poor manner:

With hexes, for example, I know that moving in the "clear" expends 1 movement point (MP), moving in "woods" expends 3 MPs. So, if I have 10 MPs I know exactly where I can move and exactly where I will end up at the end of the turn. If I choose to run all the way around a woods hex surrounded by clear hexes, I know I can do that and still have MPs to end my movement IN the woods hex. Without hexes, I cannot be sure about the amount of zig-zagging I can do within the shown movement zone. The point is that you do not always want to move to the limit of your movement zone. There may be bonuses to expending only 1/3, 1/4 or 1/2 of your MPs in any given turn. Without the hexes there to tell me exactly how many MPs I have used, I lose the ability to know these important factors of the game.

I am certainly open to a better system, but as I said before, it is the mental exercise of wargaming that I like, it is not the eye candy. If my understanding of the mechanics is lost in this new system you are looking for, then I will not play it.

I hope that even at my "old" age, I can recognize an improvement when I see one.

AlBW · Post by **AlBW** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 11:31 pm

I was going to post the link to Airborne Assault demo but Cap M beat me to it. So, sit back & relax Veldor - elimination of hexes (in some games) is already being done. IIRC, it's been tried before in the past & it really didn't catch on. Why? Possibly because there are some technical issues that aren't readily apparent. Or maybe there was a great uprising from the 40+ crowd who rail against any sort of change at all. :rolleyes: Possibly it also has to do with a matter of scale. To me, a non-hex system would make more sense in a SPWAW type game where distances are measured in meters. OTOH, it seems to work in UV (although I have never played this game) where distances are great. Squares, then hexes were introduced to allow players to more easily control their forces. In that they still serve their purpose.

Anyhow, I'm like rbrunsman in that I like wargames for the mental, problem-solving challenge they provide. The fact that they are set in a military context is icing on the cake.

I think there will be plenty of room for both hex and non-hex systems for a long time yet...maybe even by the time you reach 40 Veldor.

Veldor · Post by **Veldor** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 11:11 am

Originally posted by rbrunsman
Veldor: I think your comments to me were what could have been construed as derogatory, but I took no offense. I asked a question and got an answer, no problem.

My concern was mostly addressed by Les's excellent recent explaination, but I will attempt to ellaborate in my own poor manner:

With hexes, for example, I know that moving in the "clear" expends 1 movement point (MP), moving in "woods" expends 3 MPs. So, if I have 10 MPs I know exactly where I can move and exactly where I will end up at the end of the turn. If I choose to run all the way around a woods hex surrounded by clear hexes, I know I can do that and still have MPs to end my movement IN the woods hex. Without hexes, I cannot be sure about the amount of zig-zagging I can do within the shown movement zone. The point is that you do not always want to move to the limit of your movement zone. There may be bonuses to expending only 1/3, 1/4 or 1/2 of your MPs in any given turn. Without the hexes there to tell me exactly how many MPs I have used, I lose the ability to know these important factors of the game.

I am certainly open to a better system, but as I said before, it is the mental exercise of wargaming that I like, it is not the eye candy. If my understanding of the mechanics is lost in this new system you are looking for, then I will not play it.

I hope that even at my "old" age, I can recognize an improvement when I see one.

Seems one of the problems is the game I'm thinking about when talking about an alternative to hexes is Uncommon Valor where there IS NO TERRAIN in the hex but water mostly and its at a strategic scale whereas seemingly everyone else here is imagining Steel Panthers and a TACTICAL game when thinking about the issue.

I do think for some styles of games it would be very very difficult to have an alternative system and or even pointless. But for some types, like UV, hexes are practically already done away with, the extra leap just needs to be made..

So you are all right, in regards to the references you are using..

But how many times will you buy the same game? How many Command & Conquers will you buy? or Everquests? or Quake?

Sometimes it seems like every single game within a genre models exactly ONE successful system. It really never use to be that way.. Sure Im exaggerating a bit, but I think you get the point..

Its time for something new.

---------------------

Now to counter a statement on using hexes for establishing less than maximum movement consider this... How are we use to calculating how far it is from my task force at base X to the target I want to move to at location Y? Yep, using hexes.. okay (pointing at computer screen) one two three four.....eleven twelve thirteen....twenty-one...twenty-two! Don't know about you but I cant just look at a hexgrid and know my destination is twentytwo hexes away without counting...

You just accept that as normal when there are plenty of better ways that have nothing to do with hexes... Such as I right click on my task force at base X and a Pointer is stuck to the screen.. I then drag my mouse around and wherever my pointer is a line is drawn back to my task force and on the pointers current location is the current distance in miles or whatever real unit of measure... I know my Task Force can go X knots or X miles or whatever.

Before you knock that idea realize it would work for hexes too, eliminating the need to count distances... a great ASSET thats easy to add but never is... And as you add things like that in some games "no not all" but in some or in some designed with such a great interface in mind, hexes would be next to unneeded.

Im not trying to give all the answers, just suggest that there are other enhancements out there to existing systems as well as entirely new ones...

Fred98 · Post by **Fred98** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 11:38 am

Veldor,

Another way is to click on a unit and all the places he can move in one turn are highlighted.

A hex lover pointed out that would not suit him because he might not want to move in a straight line. He might want to zig zag his infantry for a very god reason. But there is a way around this.

You set way points. You click on the map and leave a trail of way points. Eventually you run out of movement points and so you move the way points around until you reach a solution.

Way points is SUPERIOR to adding up the numbers in your head.

See Close Combat for an example of way points.
-

Veldor · Post by **Veldor** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 12:12 pm

Originally posted by Joe 98
Veldor,

Another way is to click on a unit and all the places he can move in one turn are highlighted.

A hex lover pointed out that would not suit him because he might not want to move in a straight line. He might want to zig zag his infantry for a very god reason. But there is a way around this.

You set way points. You click on the map and leave a trail of way points. Eventually you run out of movement points and so you move the way points around until you reach a solution.

Way points is SUPERIOR to adding up the numbers in your head.

See Close Combat for an example of way points.
-

Yes, range circles, highlighting, etc. all would work well.. but if you are "hovering" in the middle somewhere you still need to know how far that point is.. so it should be indicated somehow one possibility being what I suggested... With your waypoint idea the distance could be marked on each waypoint marker.. There are endless possibilities..

Which is kinda the point... Hexes are but one possibility..

rbrunsman · Post by **rbrunsman** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 8:58 pm

Veldor: You may be interested in this campaign tool that a clever person put together for people that like to add strategic play to their tactical games.

COCAT Tool

COCAT has no hexes. It has distances in kilometers and accepts any map and overlays a coordinates system to it. It is far from perfect (I know this because I am using it in Double Deuce's Crimea Campaign for SPWAW right now) but you may enjoy poking around at it.

Zakhal · Post by **Zakhal** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 10:08 pm

I think the main motivation with hexes is that it makes the game more flexible, easier to handle and develop with only little negative side effects. So its a very good tradeoff versus hexless system.

Just think UV without hexes. It would have bin much less accessible and harder to develop meaning more devtime needed. The only positive would have bin its hexless though in the end the game would still be pretty much teh same.

Hexes are a good and efficient way to code wargames. Its simple as that.

Atleast as long as we are speaking of traditional turn based games.

Veldor · Post by **Veldor** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 11:01 pm

Originally posted by Zakhal
Just think UV without hexes. It would have bin much less accessible and harder to develop meaning more devtime needed. The only positive would have bin its hexless though in the end the game would still be pretty much teh same.

Hexes are a good and efficient way to code wargames. Its simple as that.

Are you a programmer or developer? As someone else pointed out its more a matter of density than anything else. At its extreme the density is such that they are basically "dots" rather than hexes or squares per-say.. but to a computer there is no difference between 2000-1500 or 20-15. A matrix is a matrix and a database is a database. The logic is largely the same.

Now thats just density alternation. If there are additional things a "hexless" system would be capable of that would be over and above that simple change and would make incorrect your statement that essentially there is no difference. All kinds of enhancements could be made once a base system was in place, the base system doesnt take anymore time... the enhancements would of course... just like adding the "range finder" i mentioned previously to a hex game would..

The only ease is in reusing an old engine or old code that already exists.

And in providing the minimum interface required to play. Why can't we drag around windows in UV, stack them on top of one another, minimize them... right click??? hoards of advancements that are available anywhere else...

I'm not even knocking UV here.. It is an awesome game and the most revolutionary in other areas that I've seen yet.... Yet clearly there is still a LOT of room for improvement and a lot more UNIQUE interface enhancements and fundamental core systems that can be developed...

That was my only point... It should be encouraged... not made to be like some anti-christ to the wargaming public...