Matrix Games Forums

Squares have four sides guys....not eight. That is why hexes have a distinct advantage over squares and the reason why hexes developed into the "standard" of the war board gaming industry in the first place.

Allowing movement/attack diagonally from square to square across the intersecting corners of the square is a method of improving upon the inherenet limitations of squares but is decidely artificial as the two opposing forces occupying those diagonally juxtaposed squares have no actual linear frontage facing each other and is therefore about as unrealistic as it gets.

The fact that SC2 is "square" based is one of the reasons I haven't tried it. I assume they overcame the inherent limitations of squares by using the artificial method described above which lessens it's appeal even more for me.

I have revised my opinion of this game.  I now recommend it.  The designers are honest and attempting to work with the players to improve this game.
 
AI game is good but lacks activity south of France so that area still needs work and they have said they are working on it.
 
PBEM does not have playback but they are working on away to provide us with the information we need but playback is not possible due to coding.
 
IP games are excellant no problems.

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Squares have four sides guys....not eight. That is why hexes have a distinct advantage over squares and the reason why hexes developed into the "standard" of the war board gaming industry in the first place.

Allowing movement/attack diagonally from square to square across the intersecting corners of the square is a method of improving upon the inherenet limitations of squares but is decidely artificial as the two opposing forces occupying those diagonally juxtaposed squares have no actual linear frontage facing each other and is therefore about as unrealistic as it gets.

The fact that SC2 is "square" based is one of the reasons I haven't tried it. I assume they overcame the inherent limitations of squares by using the artificial method described above which lessens it's appeal even more for me.

I find that I must agree with your oppinion also. I have tried several times to "aquire" a taste for SC2. I just can't get into it due to the square spaces. I've never liked square based maps ever since AH introduced "Tactics" into boardgame form. It's alwasy been hexes for me, although I thought I could develop a taste (against my better judgement) for SC2. Yes there are 4 sides to a square, wich are not enough. Also you can move in a diagonal direction in a square based system and end up moving much farther in lineal space compared to moving directly sideways or forward. VERY unrealistic IMO and another reason why hexes are automaticly better. What were they thinking?[X(]

Both squares and hexes are artificial impositions and each have their pros and cons. Personally I prefer hexes for a game like this.

The reason hexes are generally preferred to squares is not about facing but distance. The six adjacent hexes are all equidistant from the (centre of the) original one, but the eight adjoining squares are not.

Neither hexes nor squares tell you anything about which way a unit is facing. That's something you simply infer from the situation on the board. There is no law of nature which says you cannot move or attack diagonally out of a square. I have encountered various games which employ squares (e.g. Civilization series, Imperialism, SC2) and have not yet seen a game in which you cannot move or attack across diagonals (unless you are a rook I suppose!).

Note that when you use a map reference to locate something (as real armies do) you are in effect identifying a square of territory. We are also living in a "square" world when we refer to the points of the compass. So despite their drawbacks squares must have their uses. They were included in SC2 because of the greater tactical possibilities (the original point made by Ravinhood, and not at all illogical).

All a bit of a pedantic discussion really. HOI2 uses area movement which is even more sacreligious I suppose.

ORIGINAL: Jabba

There is no law of nature which says you cannot move or attack diagonally out of a square.

Absolutely true. However, as soon as one implements a mechanism that allows for diagonal movement/attack out of a squre one begins treating the square like a pseudo octagon, which does indeed have benefits over both squares and hexagons.

The drawback of treating squares like pseudo octagons is exactly the distance problem you outlined. If one wants octagonal movement then one should just use octagons and be done with it.

This, however, is not possible as octagons don't match up together to greate a grid the way squares and heagons do.

So one is faced with the choice of getting greater tactical flexibility by treating squares as octagons and sacrificing distance scale in the process or accpting the compromise of lesser tactical flexibility, but maintaining accuracy of distance scale with hexagons..........

I too have never liked squares except when I was young and played Tactics II but hexes had not been used in war games until AVH started using them after that.
 
My personnal preference is diffently the hex but there was one remark that really hit home here.  In real life the military uses squares.  I was a FO for many years and we always thought in squares.  That was how you determined your coordinates and gives the FDC a quadrant for fire.
 
With that in mind I will reconsider my gut dislike for the square. 

Man, I am admittedly a pretty lousy player when it comes to wargames but I must say the AI in Russia just put a heckuva beating on me. First game I've played where I gave the slider a nudge to the Allies advantage. The AI was constantly cutting me off from supply, biting deep into my flanks, the works. Great and impressive stuff.
The only place where it was easy was, as Targul pointed out, the mid-East. I don't care how much you want to stretch the imagination, the Italians are not rolling up the Brits with ease. And where is Torch?