Tile v. Hex Based

[Hanal]

Over at the Strategic Command forum, there has been a debate over whether or not it was a good idea for SC2 to be tile based as opposed to the more traditional hex based (personally, I am not that hung up on the issue and will await the end result)...Well, here we have Flashpoint Germany, a tile based game, without a single complaint that it is not hex based (at least from what I can tell)...this I find remarkable and encouraging, so I'll ask those of you who are now knee deep in the game, does it really make a difference regarding gameplay?

[Oleg Mastruko]

I like tiles way more than hexes on this scale. Tiles are among my personal favorite features in FPG.

But, having said that, this game is in no way comparable with SC, apart from that little tidbit, ie. by some quirk of chance they both happen to use tiles. SC2 is world-encompassing grand strategy, FPG is tactical, or "grand tactical" game. No comparison.

O.

[Hanal]

I guess what I was looking for Oleg was how movement and combat are handled across the diagonal...are there extra movement costs for diagonal moves ect....I know the scale is not the same but certain combat/movement rules might apply to both based on the tile system...

[Oleg Mastruko]

Of course, in FPG diagonal movement takes longer, diagonal ranges are taken into account etc.

Basically what I think is tiles are more natural, more "real life", and more "militaristic" than hexes at this scale. In real life, you would command platoon A to go to "map grid F6" (of course map grid being "tiled") etc. At operational level scale I wouldn't care about hexes or tiles because at operational level you command Brigade X to "take city Z" etc.

O.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Ey guys!
IMHO, the simultaneous resolution of turns kills any inconvenience/gameyness produced by either hexes or square tiles.

[IronManBeta]

Interesting discussion. Under the hood we resolve all distances, etc to meters and then work out arrival times based on current speed given the terrain, posture and other factors. You pay the true cost of travelling whatever distance you travel. Firing ranges are worked out the same way too. There are no free lunches by moving or shooting on the diagonal!

The result is that you can move in 8 directions instead of 6, and LOS/LOF tends to clip slightly more tiles then it would hexes at some angles. I think that the differences turn out to be very slight and other factors overshadow them in the end.

Me - I'm a hex man myself, but the specification called for tiles, the military itself uses a grid, and David wanted something that looked a little different then the usual game. That we have!

Cheers, Rob.

[AlvinS]

I am used to hexes myself, but this game system is so fluid that it feels natural to be playing on tiles. I have a lot of wargames and this is easily one of my favorites. The screen shots and the game description do not do justice to this game. Seeing is beliving

[Crimguy]

I thought I would give a s**t, but the squares aren't bothering me. When I play an HPS game, I do find myself making all kinds of hex calculations for movement, but in this game I don't really seem to care. I think that's a sign of there being more entertaining things to worry about ;-D

[iberian]

ORIGINAL: Crimguy
When I play an HPS game, I do find myself making all kinds of hex calculations for movement, but in this game I don't really seem to care. I think that's a sign of there being more entertaining things to worry about ;-D

Yes, but that's more a function of the game tempo and scope, which is fast and very dynamic, than a matter of having tiles or hexes. It's normal than in an operational scoped game you have to ponder more about distances, thus the hex counting.

[Crimguy]

I think the timed waypoints are a factor that makes the hex/sqaures debate a bit irrelevant.