Death to Hexes!

[Veldor]

I'm wondering why, more-so than any other element, computer wargame designers preserve the use of hexes in computer-based wargames.

At their core, they are simply a way to regulate movement and calculate range for combat. Perhaps a few "lesser" uses such as line of sight in a tactical game.

But, from a computer perspective, I wonder why this is necessary at all???

Look at Uncommon Valor... Why do I care that my task force can go 12 hexes? or that my planes can fly 10? Woldn't it be far more realistic to use the actual historical distances and measurements rather than just have them noted for no real game purpose at all? As well as having the flexibility to move virtually "anywhere" on the map?

Then you also solve the problem of rounding down or up a plane that should only be able to go 9.5 hexes, etc..

Free-form movement would work fine in these games. Then your plane "radius circle" would really be a circle and not the weird overlay of hexes.

Of course, behind the scenes, youd still have a "grid" to regulate movement and calculate range. It would just be a coordinate based system, basically squares, but you could have 100 by 100 squares for every hex and would thereby eliminate the advantage hexes had over squares in the first place.

And the computer could easily calculate the appropriate distance fractions based on angular movement or whatever. Wouldn't matter because its all behind the scenes... The player would just see distance circles indicating how far planes could fly or TF's could move and could pick any point for a TF destination. The feel would be one of free movement and historically accurate terminology for movement.

Anyone know of any games that have tried this (turn-based)?? I know enough about programming to know it would work and not be much harder, if at all, than current hex systems...

Many games including the same Uncommon Valor have managed to finally throw out "counters" and replace it with something much more usefull in the interface, I just wonder who is really the ones stuck on hexes, the players or the developers....???

[Fred98]

Welcome to the dark side


Go here for your answers:

Consign hexes to the dustbin of history
showthread.php?s=&threadid=18846

showthread.php?s=&threadid=30824


Perhaps you can add further ideas

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Hexes exist for two reasons in computer games Veldor.

Reason one, people still like them.

Reason two KISS principle. It is easy enough to use them, hence there is no real reason not to.

This is similar to the debate you will get from woodworkers eh.

Some champion hand tool skills and put down people that can't master them. Some say why not use a power tool if it works. After all its the end product that counts, not how you got there.

That a computer can do much, is really immaterial if no one cares.

[Veldor]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
That a computer can do much, is really immaterial if no one cares.

It has often seemed to me that the "typical" wargamer is very interested in historical accuracy and many many threads here seem to delve around debating minute differences in various numerical representations of a unit's specific characteristics while those same people seem perfectly happy (or naive) to the fact that the very system they are moving and firing those units in is about as historically in-accurate as possible.

Lets get the UN to draw 40 mile hexes all over IRAQ to regulate any attacks that we make. Make sure all our units are either in one hex or the other and cant move any fraction of hexes.

It's just a little humorous to me how pationate some are on the minor historical details while not seeming to care about the ones that are so much more imposing on accuracy....

[Fred98]

Veldor your point is well made.

But there is a resistance to change.

If computer games were invented before board games, there would be no hexes. There would be a map covered in points as I mentioned in my thread.

The hex gamers love the ability to add up all the factors and then know precisely their chances of victory when they bowl the dice. For this reason hex based games will never die. Nor will chess.

But there are some who consider this to be tedious and their view is that if Matrix reproduced the classic Avalon Hill games EXACTLY, then they couldn’t be bothered.

Yet these are the people that we need to buy Matrix games so that Matrix survives. The hex gamers are already customers of Matrix. We need the “perhaps” wargamers to become customers as well. To make them customers we must take the tedium out of the classic wargames. We must take advantage of computers to produce the next generation of wargames. Uncommon Valour is a part of the way there.

My preference is that this thread should remain positive. It should be a discussion on how to make wargames better.

[Fallschirmjager]

He has some excellent points.

Range circles would be much better....well...defomed range cirlcles...movement would have to take terrain in effect as well.

[Veldor]

Originally posted by Joe 98
Welcome to the dark side


Go here for your answers:

Consign hexes to the dustbin of history
showthread.php?s=&threadid=18846

showthread.php?s=&threadid=30824


Perhaps you can add further ideas

Well a few comments on a scan of that first thread:

1. Hexes vs Squares. It is true that my issue is probably less with hexes specifically than with the "density" of such hexes. But as density increases to a level of say 100 times what it is now I would see regular x/y style coordinates both better from a computational programming standpoint and as the player would not need to see them or directly use them, better from that standpoint as well.
2. In regards to "zone of control" type comments on exact locations of units.. I think there is some truth in that but I think its also diverting from some core examples of where hexes fail such as when looking at a range circle, but its actual range being one more or one less hex due to lack of a perfect circle. The range in miles is the range in miles and from an order standpoint I should be able to order a unit to any position... Maybe they dont go exactly to that point, maybe they do, maybe they stay there maybe they dont... but thats a seperate issue and game mechanic and has nothing to do with the fact that I should be able to do it or see an accurrate circle of range in a game.
3. If for lack of any other negative, hexes are "gamey" and produce "gamey" results.

One major argument against any "change" or "advancement" in wargaming seems to be that nobody cares if a different way could be better. If that's really the truth then wargamers are a sad bunch. I know of no other hobby where its biggest enthusiasts aren't always looking for a better way to accomplish something.

If there is something I'm really criticizing here its the fact that so few have attempted to "break the mold". Sure hexes are adequate and work for a variety of games, but why not "advance" and do it a better way? Where is the innovation? Computer wargamers are blinded by the "newness" of computer adaptations. I don't want to be buying the same old-style games in 10 years. Every other genre of gaming is improving and advancing...wargames need to as well.

In short I guess I just take the opposite stance. That there is no added "negative" to a system such as the one I propose and whether or not it would or wouldn't be more realistic, it would certainly give that "feel" due to the freedom of movement.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

I prefer board games instead of computers, I guess I am the wrong audience heheh.

[Fred98]

Veldor,

If you go to the Battlefields forum here at Matrix you will see I started another thread titled “Battlefields – The Next Generation”

I was going to finish that post by suggesting the doing away of hexes but I felt that people would then ignore the other points in my post.

You and I are going the same way.

[Fred98]

If we do away with hexes there is an issue I have not resolved.

When 2 enemy units meet, how exactly do they meet? Currently they face each other over a hex side.

If a unit is centred over a point, then they might meet only at each other’s corners. Somehow they need to turn and face each other. Perhaps somehow they need to do what units do in real life – and mould against each other.

But moulding would look silly. I have this vision of a blob attacking another blob. Clearly this would not work.

We need ideas.

[Veldor]

Originally posted by Joe 98
The hex gamers are already customers of Matrix.

It is sad that the general thought is that everyone who could be a wargamer is already a wargamer. Or perhaps that every computer wargamer was first a board wargamer.

No doubt there is a great audience for simple board game conversion. Heck there are quite a few I'd like to see myself. How about an Up Front computer game with the cards on screen and a computer tabletop to flip chits and place cards on?

In the board game days, some games did break the mold using area movement, or even Up Front is a great example. Many wargamers refused to ever even give it a try... yet most who did became near fanatical with it making it in my opinion at least one of the most successful games ever.

There is just no way that hexes are the right choice for nearly EVERY computer wargame out there. Its just the LAZY choice. Someone has to step up and "rethink" the entire process, leverage in the additional computing and display capabilities a pc provides, and produce a 100% genuine and innovative "NEW" game system.

Sure Im content too.. merely at computer adaptations and rereleases of slightly rev'd up old titles... but perhaps it takes something more to propel our hobby beyond its current boundaries....

I'm very rarely "impressed" much less "blown-away" by a new computer wargame title. More often its just something slightly different or slightly newer than a way I was playing it before...

[Veldor]

Originally posted by Joe 98
If we do away with hexes there is an issue I have not resolved.

When 2 enemy units meet, how exactly do they meet? Currently they face each other over a hex side.

If a unit is centred over a point, then they might meet only at each other’s corners. Somehow they need to turn and face each other. Perhaps somehow they need to do what units do in real life – and mould against each other.

But moulding would look silly. I have this vision of a blob attacking another blob. Clearly this would not work.

We need ideas.

Well in my version the map behind the scenes is more a huge area of squares...So first it depends on the scale of the game but a unit would occupy one or more of those squares, perhaps slightly randomly due to "zone of control", "Fog of War", etc... since every unit has ranges...combat would happen not much differently than it does now from a "behind the scenes" point of view. How that is drawn or represented on the screen is really a different issue altogether and would depend on what graphical representation was used..

[rbrunsman]

I'm curious if you non-hex loving guys are Generation Xers or not. I'm 37, so I could be a Baby Boomer or the first year of Gen X. Speaking as the youngest of the "old guys," I think that hexes are one of God's gifts to man. I think they are great. They allow me to know what my capabilities are and my opponents'. It is genius in its simplicity. I am one that doesn't care a bit about authenticity as long as my brain gets to exercise while I play games. So I see no need for "free form" movement.

I suspect this is a generation gap issue myself. Life without hexes will be a little dimmer in my view. Just call me a Luddite.

[Fred98]

Dear Luddite,

I am 43. I cut my wargaming teeth on hexes.

Your comment ...."allow me to know what my capabilities are and my opponents' " ...was covered in one of my posts above.

Its not a generation X issue. What I DON'T want is flash bang. What I do want is more flexibility and more accuracy and to take advantage of computers to achieve both.

A dice has 6 sides. A virtual dice has millions of sides.

[Veldor]

Originally posted by rbrunsman
I'm curious if you non-hex loving guys are Generation Xers or not. I'm 37, so I could be a Baby Boomer or the first year of Gen X. Speaking as the youngest of the "old guys," I think that hexes are one of God's gifts to man. I think they are great. They allow me to know what my capabilities are and my opponents'. It is genius in its simplicity. I am one that doesn't care a bit about authenticity as long as my brain gets to exercise while I play games. So I see no need for "free form" movement.

I suspect this is a generation gap issue myself. Life without hexes will be a little dimmer in my view. Just call me a Luddite.

The hex idea is genius for boardgames. However, I think its benefits are largely overstated in reference to computer wargames.

Matrix's own Uncommon Valor is a perfect example. It practically does away with the need for hexes without even realizing it. For Instance:

LAND UNITS: Can generally only occupy bases, beaches, or be on transports. What little movement between "locations" that does occur GET THIS... is actually measured in something other than hexes.. Fractional movement between two hexes as it takes many days (approx 7.5 in the case of WAU) to actually move from one full hex to another. Thus for land units hexes serve absolutely ZERO purpose.

AIR UNITS: Can generally only be located at an airbase or on an aircraft carrier. Hexes merely regulate movement though quite ODDLY perfectly circular range circles are drawn to indicate normal, maximum, extended range and so on. While these circles are wonderfully simple helpful and so on.. they poorly reflect the actual "hexes" that movement relies on. So for air units too Hexes are basically useless in UV.

NAVAL UNITS: This is the only area that has any value at all in relationship to hexes. And since the ocean is such a VAST open area the prime candidate for more freeform movement. Once again we see nice CIRCLE based ranges yet movement is in hexes. Knots and Mile Ranges are all there but unused. Hexes are even turned off by default but due to the system you basically have to turn them on to do anything usefull.

As for about me (Sorry you asked).. I am 28 and started playing board wargames at 12. ASL at like 14 (around whenever it first came out). Playtested a ton,played and owned just about every board wargame in existence. Was once less than a dozen or so titles from a complete AH game collection. On the PC side an accomplished Network/Systems/Database/& Programming Consultant and one-time developer actually drawing back to "freeware" game conversions including the first or one of the first C-64 adaptations of AH's "ACQUIRE" with AI. Former juvenile host of the second largest pirate BBS in the midwest and reason for my now adamant opposition to piracy as well as source of much of my knowledge in that area both professionally and privately. Oh yeah and pro-Microsoft. That's it, thats all there is too me (j/k) Wonder if that helps you figure out why I am so different than you on this view...

And I'm not "non-hex loving".. I simply praise innovation, ingenuity, and advancement over repetitive dribble...

Are you sure your not just "set in your ways" as one who approaches forty and losing the more "open mind" that the younger generation always seems to possess?

Please be honest... I'm dying to know what the hangup on hexes is all about....

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Guys the problem here is the people that will be open to non hex wargames, are going to tell you they have to look like something between Battlefield 42 and Combat Mission.

They will tell me to stuff my boring hex turn based game, but they will also tell you to stuff your boring squares or points or fractional movements game as well.

We are all boring wargamers to them.

To attack squares notion, "what do you do with corners?", you lop oof the corners, call them hexes, and eliminate the trouble.

"Lazy choice" I personally prefer to call it the "efficient choice".
It might not be the most accurate methodology, but it works. Has worked for years.
Just because it's on a computer doesn't mean it has to be rebuilt. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

You guys are killing yourself over what, a hex image? Why not pester the people that design AIs for games.

Give the average AI the most visually stunning most incredibly accurate simulation possible, but fail to improve the AI and what have you got, a better looking game that is still just as boring when you yet again beat the AI.

[Veldor]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
Guys the problem here is the people that will be open to non hex wargames, are going to tell you they have to look like something between Battlefield 42 and Combat Mission.

Just because it's on a computer doesn't mean it has to be rebuilt. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it... Board wargames did not have AI's so why should computer wargames?

Can you try to see past the fact that you don't need to see hexes or squares at all on a computer. Corners or no corners are irrelevant. There aren't stacking issues, there aren't any issues at all besides movement regulation and range calculation and none need be hex based on a computer given its far more advanced abilities such as that of providing the AI you mentioned. A proper interface is more than possible to better control and portrey unit location, movement, and ranging.

I'm not refering to existing games, I'm not refering to converted games, I'm not refering to anything other than a hopeful "Next" generation of games that make some advancement in leveraging that aspect of computing ability and power.

The limitations that hexes impose do not need to exist in a computer version. Nor does the game have to be any more complex for lack of hexes if the interface is built properly. Actually, in the case of UV, I'd argue its more complex now seeing circles but having to move in hexes.... WTF ???

[pasternakski]

Veldor, I don't understand why you would embark on a holy war against such an innocuous thing as use of hexagons in wargame design (both computer and paper-and-cardboard). Further, I have no idea why you find it necessary, without knowing the people you are insulting or fully understanding the concepts you are deriding, to characterize everyone older than yourself as a hopeless, antediluvian nincompoop by default if he happens to disagree at all with your opinions.

The very earliest boardgame designs used squares (witness Tactics II). The idea was to impose order on chaos. Some bright people came to understand that representation of movement was unacceptably distorted, and saw the value of hexagons, which make movement regular in all axes from the current position while still allowing for use of the same geometric shape across the entire playing area.

This was a brilliant advance for myriad reasons. One of the most important is that geographic characteristics can be identified as being within a specific area for treatment by the game system. You sacrifice the structure, and you have nothing but a bunch of sense-blinded ants wandering around in an undefined landscape.

You criticize use of hexes. You got something better?

[Ludovic Coval]

Veldor,

There is just no way that hexes are the right choice for nearly EVERY computer wargame out there. Its just the LAZY choice. Someone has to step up and "rethink" the entire process, leverage in the additional computing and display capabilities a pc provides, and produce a 100% genuine and innovative "NEW" game system.

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.

[Veldor]

Originally posted by pasternakski
Veldor, I don't understand why you would embark on a holy war against such an innocuous thing as use of hexagons in wargame design (both computer and paper-and-cardboard). Further, I have no idea why you find it necessary, without knowing the people you are insulting or fully understanding the concepts you are deriding, to characterize everyone older than yourself as a hopeless, antediluvian nincompoop by default if he happens to disagree at all with your opinions.

You've misread. I've nothing against the use of hexes in paper-and-cardboard games. They work great and are far superior to squares. I never insulted anyone. You've apparantly insulted yourself in interpreting my wording. I started the thread to avoid "hijacking" any other. You needn't participate in the discussion if your offended by my statements or the topic of the thread. It is after-all a public forum...

The very earliest boardgame designs used squares (witness Tactics II). The idea was to impose order on chaos. Some bright people came to understand that representation of movement was unacceptably distorted, and saw the value of hexagons, which make movement regular in all axes from the current position while still allowing for use of the same geometric shape across the entire playing area.

My comments have nothing to do with board wargame design.. If you want to draw a comparison, use miniature based games or a game like Avalon Hill's "Napoleans Battles" I think it was that didnt use hexes but rather free movement.

You criticize use of hexes. You got something better?

Absolutely. Read the posts I've already made in this thread. And though I don't think its that close to what I proposed, it seems it would be easier to imagine such a thing being possible if we focused on converting a miniatures based game or the other I mentioned to a computerized format.