Page 2 of 3
RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why?
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:12 pm
by Lobster
ORIGINAL: Trugrit
I rate hexes the same way I rate fake cardboard counters. Useless.
Modern computer technology can do much better than a graphical faking of 20th century board games.
I’ve stated my opinion before, my post #13:
fb.asp?m=3853707
You need some kind of graphical representation of a unit regardless of it's size. Hence the counters. You could represent each soldier and each of his weapons or position on a crewed weapon and use pixel to pixel movement and weapons effects but the computing power needed would likely be more than current cpus could handle without the players becoming tired of waiting for results unless it were a tactical scale game.
So, since units would have to be represented as groups (unless you have a super computer or daisy chain some PS4s) and as such cover a much larger area than a single individual or crewed weapon you would have to have some graphical representation of the unit and the area it covered. Some games use little tanks and such but that's no different than a counter. I suppose you could do that without using counters and hexes. Perhaps an ellipse of a variable shape might work. You could position crewed weapons within the units ellipse for accuracy. But if it hasn't been done then it's not likely it will be. I imagine there's lots of ways this could be approached. I'd say it's not likely to make any/much money though. I've not seen any wargames above tactical level do anything other than little tanks/soldiers or counters.
RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why?
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:21 pm
by Mobeer
Either approach can work, but I always prefer:
1) having a flat side as the front
2) moving forward\backward along a flat side
So for a game played West-East then I like the bottom version.
RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why?
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:21 pm
by Kuokkanen
ORIGINAL: Lobster
ORIGINAL: Trugrit
I rate hexes the same way I rate fake cardboard counters. Useless.
Modern computer technology can do much better than a graphical faking of 20th century board games.
I’ve stated my opinion before, my post #13:
fb.asp?m=3853707
You need some kind of graphical representation of a unit regardless of it's size. Hence the counters. You could represent each soldier and each of his weapons or position on a crewed weapon and use pixel to pixel movement and weapons effects but the computing power needed would likely be more than current cpus could handle without the players becoming tired of waiting for results unless it were a tactical scale game.
Check this shit out
RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why?
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:33 pm
by Lobster
Tactical battles. Total War. Been copied many times.
RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why?
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:02 pm
by ncc1701e
ORIGINAL: Lobster
You need some kind of graphical representation of a unit regardless of it's size. Hence the counters. You could represent each soldier and each of his weapons or position on a crewed weapon and use pixel to pixel movement and weapons effects but the computing power needed would likely be more than current cpus could handle without the players becoming tired of waiting for results unless it were a tactical scale game.
So, since units would have to be represented as groups (unless you have a super computer or daisy chain some PS4s) and as such cover a much larger area than a single individual or crewed weapon you would have to have some graphical representation of the unit and the area it covered. Some games use little tanks and such but that's no different than a counter. I suppose you could do that without using counters and hexes. Perhaps an ellipse of a variable shape might work. You could position crewed weapons within the units ellipse for accuracy. But if it hasn't been done then it's not likely it will be. I imagine there's lots of ways this could be approached. I'd say it's not likely to make any/much money though. I've not seen any wargames above tactical level do anything other than little tanks/soldiers or counters.
Does anyone have military map sources from the First World War where units were actually represented?
I am always seeing those NATO counters... so my view is skewed.
Same, would be interested to see a real C4I military map of our modern armies.
RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why?
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:03 pm
by Michael T
I can tell you the ones I don't like are the ones that look flattened or elongated.
RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why?
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:11 pm
by Trugrit
ORIGINAL: ncc1701e
ORIGINAL: Trugrit
I rate hexes the same way I rate fake cardboard counters. Useless.
Modern computer technology can do much better than a graphical faking of 20th century board games.
I’ve stated my opinion before, my post #13:
fb.asp?m=3853707
I am certainly becoming old and your point is very valid. What are you proposing for map then? Just removing the hexagons?
Or a kind of overlay looking like this:
https://www.loc.gov/resource/g5701s.ict ... 67,0.233,0
Cheers
Yes, If you have ever seen an electric map, that is one way.
WITP-AE does a good job on the strategic level and you can turn off the hexes.
Here is a video of a battle map done with fiber optics. A computer could do a much better job.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... bEFTrYkraY
RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why?
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:33 pm
by GaryChildress
What about using squares as was done in the early Civilization games only maybe increase the movement cost of diagonal movement to 1.5 movement points (or whatever mathematical/geometrical equivalent the diagonal best equates to) instead of 1 or something?
RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why?
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:02 pm
by nukkxx5058
ORIGINAL: ncc1701e
ORIGINAL: nukkxx
Good point
I was attacking the north
[:D][:D][:D]
So it depends on the front line
So, in your opinion, best is to have the front line facing three sides instead of two. Right?
Well, TBH I have no idea... but it's a good question
RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why?
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:26 pm
by E
ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer
A hex is always a hex. Just as long as it isn't a square.
A hex IS a hex. And a horse is a horse, of course. Of course. And no one can talk to a horse, of course (
That is, of course, unless the horse is the famous...[/]).
RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why?
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:02 pm
by Zorch
There are other ways to tile a 2D surface with regular polyhedrons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... rm_tilings
RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why?
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:25 pm
by Aurelian
ORIGINAL: Lobster
Tactical battles. Total War. Been copied many times.
More to SYR than that.
RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why?
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:41 am
by jimi3
This has to be the most interesting question I've never thought about. My slight OCD likes the top one. Movement takes the bottom one. Just please never do squares. A very Happy New Year to everyone. Pondering hex position in a confused and divisive world seems very calming.
RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why?
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 5:21 am
by nukkxx5058
ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer
A hex is always a hex. Just as long as it isn't a square.
Field Of Glory II (and the rest of the franchise) is using squares + orientable units ... Was wondering what impact it had on the gameplay, if any ...
RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why?
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:21 am
by loki100
ORIGINAL: nukkxx
ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer
A hex is always a hex. Just as long as it isn't a square.
Field Of Glory II (and the rest of the franchise) is using squares + orientable units ... Was wondering what impact it had on the gameplay, if any ...
it works well as it simulates the emphasis on linear formations. There is the usual issue of diagonals but the nature of the system is that is realistic for heavier/organised infantry and works out ok for cavalry and skirmishers.
RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why?
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:28 am
by ncc1701e
ORIGINAL: Orm
I prefer the second one, with a straight hex side to East and West.
Although that might be because I often fight games were the majority of the action is in the East-West axis. Like most of the campaigns in WWII Europe, or Northern Africa.
Almost all conflicts in history were on the East-West axis. I find difficult to find an example of the contrary.
RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why?
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 11:09 am
by Trugrit
A very interesting discussion. Discussion of game design which is important for us all.
The problems with hexes has been covered before in war games forums:
http://general-staff.com/the-problem-wi ... /#comments
The drunken hexagon walk:
Range Problem With Hexes:
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/737175 ... er-wargame
Range distortion:
This is a review of a game called Airland Battle.
It uses control sectors instead of hexes.
It takes full advantage of modern computer technology. Check out the zoom features:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXgbNc8XQp8
Airlandbattle is an older modern era war game but there is no reason that this type of computer technology can’t be applied to any era war game.
Turn based, WEGO or other format.
RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why?
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 11:12 am
by TheGrayMouser
ORIGINAL: ncc1701e
ORIGINAL: Orm
I prefer the second one, with a straight hex side to East and West.
Although that might be because I often fight games were the majority of the action is in the East-West axis. Like most of the campaigns in WWII Europe, or Northern Africa.
Almost all conflicts in history were on the East-West axis. I find difficult to find an example of the contrary.
Well, except for all conflicts in North America, Korea, Japan , italy, Russia v the balkans , Russia v the khanates, EcW, China versus mongals, Ming versus south China, boar war etc .
Even in classic WW2 East front operations., every single time a salient is formed, fighting reorients on a north south axis to pinch it off.
It’s really about aesthetics, although movement has to zig zag to go pure east in the top sample, which I think looks nicer. For me, the bottom one looks “ stretched”, even though I know it’s not.
RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why?
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:11 pm
by TheGrayMouser
Cool way to illustrate the geometry of it all but does this really matter?; unless your trying to design a pure simulation, in which case it’s flawed from the getgo, compounded by using a turn based movement sequence. It’s seems to me that you should not be trying measure distance in straight lines when the physics of your world is in hex format. Movement is from hex center to hex center. Sure there is distortion but time and space are always distorted in turn based games. Where is that unit anyhow? Is it in the exact center of the hex, near the edge, spilling out into one or more adjacent hexes? The answer is “it depends”.
I don’t know any hex game where attacking from a different angle relative to hex orientation gives any advantage. Now geography can be somewhat distorted but doesn’t that happen anyways with all maps?
RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why?
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:50 pm
by Trugrit
"It’s seems to me that you should not be trying measure distance in straight lines when the physics of your world is in hex format."
You are correct in this but my point is why is the physics of my world in hex format?
In a board game you need your world to be in hex format. You need the stacks of cardboard.
With computer technology why do you need hex format?