Martin Rapier | 19 Feb 2009 10:04 a.m. PST |
For some periods, particularly linear ones, squares work better than hexes as they simplify the facing issues. Shame as I like my hexon. Havnig said that we've played quite a few H&M games using hexes and you can usually fudge your way through. I'm still working on a satisfactory solution for how the grain works, very undecided between hex side facing and hex point facing. |
MajerBlundor | 19 Feb 2009 11:03 a.m. PST |
"Played Command & Colors ad nauseum. My recollection is that one still ran into the old problems with facing ("Is that unit facing this vertice or that one?")" Hmmm
I thought the C&C/BattleLore system didn't have unit facing. I think the only time "direction" comes into play is when trying to retreat and you're blocked by terrain/friendly troops/enemy troops. Not sure how that would result in problems since you only have two choices as to hexes. Will have to look that one up. |
lemansir | 20 Feb 2009 4:33 p.m. PST |
It seems that most of the comments have concerned 1 unit-to-one square/hex. Has anyone any experience or thoughts on having a unit span 2, or even more, squares/hexes? |
thehawk | 21 Feb 2009 1:05 a.m. PST |
The Clash Of Arms SYW games do multi hexes per unit I think. There is another problem with squares and hexes for miniatures – few people actually have the products/systems to use them. |
Condottiere | 21 Feb 2009 5:48 a.m. PST |
Hmmm
I thought the C&C/BattleLore system didn't have unit facing. You might be right. It's been quite awhile so my recollection may be off. But then again, I couldn't care less, since we've stopped playing C&C. |
Fred Cartwright | 21 Feb 2009 9:11 a.m. PST |
I know this is going to sound really superficial, but, I don't like the way hexes or grids look on a 3d tabletop. I've heard players say this then watched as they layed out their terrain as a series of modular terrain boards which, surprise, surprise created an instant grid! For some periods, particularly linear ones, squares work better than hexes as they simplify the facing issues. Didn't one of Phil Sabin's ancient games have units facing aligned to the points of the hexes rather than the faces? IIRC that solved a lot of the problems with facing. |
MajerBlundor | 21 Feb 2009 12:08 p.m. PST |
I've seen games using the nexus of the hex instead of the hex side to define unit facing. The only downside is that you can't be head-to-head with a single unit. Units are always facing off between two opposing units. Again, not a big deal since our grognard board gaming brethren have managed to play hardcore wargames with hexes for decades. re: multi-unit hexes in my home grown rules for moderns I allow multiple units in a single square subject to a "bunching" penalty which makes them easier to hit if overcrowded. In fact that's something one rarely sees in traditional ruler/template games outside of arty templates being able to target bunched stands. In most games the relationship between bunching up and direct fire is almost non-existent. MB |
UshCha | 22 Feb 2009 2:10 p.m. PST |
Some thoughts on limitations of using a designed hex board. I have just written tomorrows scenario, rear slope defence. Using the Hexon terrain I need 39 edge slope tiles and about a dozen '5's (you can somtimes cheat and not use a map to study particulat tactical situatios. However a quick check shows I would need 44 linear feature hexes (roads and rivers). Given that that this is not a dence board ,it shows that a complex terrain would take far too long to set up at a club and take far too much storage space to cart about. Our roads are strips of card which take minimal space and can be overlapped so selecting a specific length is not an issue. Same with the rivers. So hex tiles may have other issues if taken to extreems. Just an observation by a bored semi geek. I should be taking photos of the bridges but this is more fun! |
Sargonarhes | 22 Feb 2009 2:51 p.m. PST |
This whole debate is making me think of adopting the square for gaming over the hex. After all most of the PC turn based strategy games I've played all move on squares, as do most board games. It's all starting to make sense now. |
balticbattles | 22 Feb 2009 3:42 p.m. PST |
I'll throw something else into the mix I played a sailing game run at Salute a few years ago by a group in portsmouth, I think. "Fire as she bears" This had normal terrain but the ships sat on octogons (easy to determine facing and turn), and when you wanted to move you put more down in front of the ship where you wanted to go and moved, taking them up behind you. You could do this with individual units on a games table, best of both worlds? |
MajerBlundor | 23 Feb 2009 11:44 a.m. PST |
"Some thoughts on limitations of using a designed hex board." I think your example shows the limitation of the Hexon Terrain System and not hexes (two different issues). I routinely set set up complex terrain for our games at a local game store and have no trouble with transport and set-up. I only have to carry: - 1x game mat (marked with 4" squares, rolled up) - 1x or 2x boxes of terrain (same stuff from my pre-squares days, nothing specialized) - 1x or 2x boxes of troops And I can usually manage the load alone. But I feel your pain! Years ago I made 2' x 2' sculpted terrain boards. They were beautiful! Realistic slopes, perfect rivers, and roads sculpted right into the boards. And they were a real bear to transport and even though made of thick foam
still pretty heavy and bulky. The Hexon system shares the same problem as the old Geo-Hex system and GHQ's system: what you gain in looks you lose in flexibility and transportability. Much easier to simply throw an easily transported mat over some foam hills (whether or not it's marked with a grid). @highlandbevan
I've done the same thing for a space combat game! Using the base to define arcs and turning points at least you eliminate templates and all sorts of "discussions". MB |
Last Hussar | 23 Feb 2009 3:32 p.m. PST |
Octagons- sounds liek they nicked the idea from the CCG of Crimson Skies (or vice versa) |
Martin Rapier | 24 Feb 2009 2:35 a.m. PST |
I find hexon works best for fairly small battlefields (I almost never use a whole box full, and often only half a box), so yu need a farly coarse grained move/combat system. For finer detail I have various base cloths, floor tiles etc gridded up with squares of differing sizes. One effective technique is to mark out a grid in one size (say 3" squares) but then overlay it with dots in alternating corners to produce a 6" grid and then with crosses in alternating alternating corners to produce a 12" grid, all on the same cloth. With the cloth you can just bung on normal terrain items – which is what I do for hexon as well (apart from hills, although I sometimes do those with contour indicators rather than hill pieces, Froeschwiller was impossible to do any other way). The facing/hex issue only really applies in periods where you have formed close order units and facing matters a great deal. I've used hexes for twentieth century stuff covering anything from tactical games up to army size engagements without any problems. |
normsmith | 24 Feb 2009 1:31 p.m. PST |
I have boardgamed all my life and so find hexes quite natural and for the most part, the 'grid' is not obtrusive, as the eye learns to ignore it when it needs to. Really can't understand anyone having problems with facing, indeed it seems to me that defining the front, flank and rear aspects of a unit and lines of attack / defence are ideally suited the hex system. maybe it's one of those things that is just counter-intuative to non-hex users. Kallistra have a fantasy set of rules on their website which can be freely downloaded, which show examples of facing within the hex. In the boardgaming community, the hex really has withstood everything that has been thrown at it in the past 50 years, from tactical ancient to tactical modern and beyond, at all levels of complexity. Over the same period, the square has never been embraced, making as it does, the occasional guest appearance in the odd game here and there. I think the hex is really good at containing large battlefields in small areas, as the hex can be what ever scale you choose (100 metres or 1000 metres per hex) so some quite strategic sized games can be played in a small area without looking as odd as a 'freeform' game does when operating at the same differences in scale. |
Condottiere | 24 Feb 2009 5:03 p.m. PST |
Every system has its ups and downs. No system is perfect. Some prefer hexes over squares, while others don't like either. Simple. It comes down to a matter of preference. Neither is better or worse than the other. There you have it. |
Martin Rapier | 25 Feb 2009 7:43 a.m. PST |
"as the hex can be what ever scale you choose (100 metres or 1000 metres per hex)" He He, my high level operational rules use 10km per hex, I'm experimenting with 15km per hex for really big battles. The facing issue is that if I want have, say, 500m hexes and an infantry regiment in each hex, then it can face a side or a point. If it faces a side it can march face-face, but it has no obvious flank unless the enemy is actually behind it. If it faces a point it has two very obvious flanks, but it can't follow a side-side road unless it magically side-steps. In both cases the hex grain means you get wierd 2:1 or 3:1 matchups when adjacent. Very few boardgames I've played bother about unit facing, the few exceptions being Tobruk (no terrain), Firepower (fairly complex), Sniper (simply bizarre) and Squad Leader + family (ranging from quite simple to mind melting, bypass movement anyone?). I haven't played many tactical Horse & Musket games though, just operational ones, but the problem is presumably soluble. |
normsmith | 25 Feb 2009 2:10 p.m. PST |
Yes, you can have rules that effectively stop 'ganging up', such as (1) specifically saying that a unit can only be attacked by 1 unit (2) attacked by one unit but 'supported' by others (3) all enemy units in a zone of control (i.e. adjacent) must be attacked before any attacker can gang up – this results in 'soak off' and low odd attacks in some points of the line and concentrated attacks in others. I self published (DTP – non mounted counters etc)a Hastings game several years ago in which the units faced the hex vertex (i.e had two hexes in it's frontal arc) and attacks could only be made 1 on 1 – though if the defender remained in place, then another adjacent unit could then have a 1 on 1 attack – it worked well (especially as attackers invariably faced risks of getting a bad result for themselves). i am collecting a 10mm 1066 Norman army right now to translate the boardgame onto my Hexon table. In all systems that I have played, the system uses either VERTEX facing (the point) or HEX EDGE facing (the flat) but never the twain shall meet in the same system. If facing is used, then the rules for movement will generally be that the unit can only advance into one of it's FRONTAL hexes. To advance in any other direction, the unit must first pivot in the hex (this usaully costs an extra movement point or so, or costs 1 extra point per hexside pivoted) so that it now faces one of the hexes that it wishes to move into. |
MajerBlundor | 25 Feb 2009 2:23 p.m. PST |
"In all systems that I have played, the system uses either VERTEX facing (the point) or HEX EDGE facing (the flat) but never the twain shall meet in the same system." I think the insanely complex "Air War" from SPI used both. (Yes, I was young and foolish when I played that game
and had plenty of time on my hands as a high school kid.) |
normsmith | 01 Mar 2009 1:10 p.m. PST |
I have just put an AAR for a Russian 1943 game played on Hexon II terrain, up on my webpage, gives idea of what a small layout looks like. grandolddukeofyork.co.uk |
Rudysnelson | 03 Mar 2009 1:09 p.m. PST |
The original rules for 1980s 'Coastal Command' 9MTBs) allowed them to be played on an open rolling map. They later 2000 Revision contained rules modifications allowing the use of Movemnet points and for games to be played on a hex-grid sea map. This was especially playable with the very small 1/200 and smaller scale MTB ranges that are being produced. I have seen 1/600 played using the Portsmouth style large hex maps. Portsmouth's Age of Sail naval system uses large hex-grid maps. Both large and small grid maps have been used in avaiationsytems as a movement /location control method. I was a group in Kanasas City use sat maps and overlay hex grids on them and use them for boming run missions in WW2. For land warfare we designed a Vietnam rules set which had rules mechanics for either open map or a large hex grid map. These hex system made such Vietnam era concepts as ambushes, movement controls, Fog of War, mixed terrain (jungle with open areas) , searches by direct fire and indirect fire support. |
MajerBlundor | 20 Mar 2009 9:18 a.m. PST |
Norm, I missed your post earlier in the month. You set-up looks great! But the links to your downloads are broken. Are they available anywhere else? One of my friends once suggested that I publish my square-based rules. We've really enjoyed them but I can't see a grid-based miniatures game being a commercial success since it adds a grid-based mat or surface as a playing requirement. PBI uses a 6" grid but even though it's a great game I'm not certain it's widely played. MB |
normsmith | 20 Mar 2009 9:35 a.m. PST |
MB – I cut the links last week while I sort out a technical 'traffic allowance' question with my Service Provider – thyey are slow in responding and I will re-establish the link ASAP. Re your rules, you could try publishing via something like LULU.COM (printing on demand), which would mean that whether you sold 1 or 300 copies, you would not be pqaying for any stock. In the UK PBI seems to be liked. As to my own rules, since theye are hex based, I am exploring the possibility of them being used in a boardgame version of the game. thanks Norm. |
(Phil Dutre) | 26 Jul 2009 5:02 a.m. PST |
I use almost exclusively hexes (Hexon terrain) in my games. One thing to mention is that the hexgrid does not have to be used for all aspects involving ranges. E.g. in our Wild West skirmish games (single figures), the hexgrid (10cm hexes) are used for movement and ranges, but not for Line of Sight. Line of Sight is still determined from single figure to single figure (and not from the centre of an hex to the centre of another hex as you might do with unit-based games). A figure can position himself anywhere within the hex he has reached after movement. In such a system, perfect alignement of the terrain features with the hexgrid are also less of an issue. |
MajerBlundor | 26 Jul 2009 6:46 a.m. PST |
E.g. in our Wild West skirmish games (single figures), the hexgrid (10cm hexes) are used for movement and ranges, but not for Line of Sight. Line of Sight is still determined from single figure to single figure (and not from the centre of an hex to the centre of another hex as you might do with unit-based games). Phildutre, Do you have some more details on this? I've played around doing the same thing for my square-based sci-fi/modern rules but haven't really pursued it aggressively. MB |
Grand Duke Natokina | 26 Jul 2009 1:30 p.m. PST |
I game with two overlapping groups. One uses neither hexes nor squares, just the table top; the other uses hexes for control. His mandate was to set up, fight, and take down a game in a day--sometimes a weekend--as his wargame area served other purposes besides gaming. At the first location, we would leave a game set up for maybe 6 months playing two or three times a month. I think I would prefer squares as that is how military maps are divided and I'm used to them from my time in the Army. I can live with any of the three systems, however, as long as we can play a good game. Natokina. |
(Phil Dutre) | 27 Jul 2009 4:12 a.m. PST |
E.g. in our Wild West skirmish games (single figures), the hexgrid (10cm hexes) are used for movement and ranges, but not for Line of Sight. Line of Sight is still determined from single figure to single figure (and not from the centre of an hex to the centre of another hex as you might do with unit-based games). Phildutre, Do you have some more details on this? I've played around doing the same thing for my square-based sci-fi/modern rules but haven't really pursued it aggressively.
Well, it's simple really. In a typical skirmish game, you need ranges for movement and firing. For those we use hexes, since that saves the most time. There is no need for measurements using a ruler. However, when using single figures, you want the additional detail of placing your figure behind the corner of a house, behind a rock, hidden in the bush etc. These terrain features are at a sub-hex scale, since we use the hexon terrain and our hexes are 10cm across. The typical boardgaming approach of 1 hex == 1 terrain type doesn't quite work, as it does in unit-based games in which an entire unit occupies an entire hex. Thus, we use the following rules: - A single figure may position himself anywhere in the hex he has reached. Repositioning inside a hex (without moving to an adjecent hex) also counts as moving. - When a figure moves from hex to hex, he can designate the actual path walked (if necessary), avoiding a wall, or walking around a house etc, as long as his path is within that hex. This might affect opportunity fire. - Line of sight is determined from single figure to single figure, taking into account sub-hex terrain features. - Close combat can be made between any 2 figures in the same hex, unless there is a physical barrier. - A figure present in a hex can interrupt the movement of a figure moving through (thus 1 hex = zone of control), unless again some sort of phsyical barrier is present. Such an approach works well to blend together the comfort of counting hexes for movement and firing, but at the same time allowing for sub-hex terrain features. Of course, one could argue that by making the hexes smaller, and only 1 figure occupying a single hex (e.g. heroscape or battletech), such rules are not necessary. But then, movement and firing become more tedious, and secondly, I have a lot of Hexon terrain i want to put to good use. The approcah outlined above works for our Wild West skirmish games quite well. Phil |
MajerBlundor | 27 Jul 2009 5:50 a.m. PST |
Thanks Phil, I'll give that a try with our squares! On a related note we've played a couple of sci-fi skirmish games recently using rulers. We happened to be playing on my game mat with a square grid. During the game even my friends who turned their noses up at squares started using the squares instead of their rulers! Movement was in 4" increments and the squares are 4" so they simply started using the squares to measure their moves. Why not reach across the table for a ruler or tape measure (there were lots available)? Because grids are SO much faster and easier than such devices! I didn't mention it to them but their natural inclination for squares over rulers, even though they had sometimes derided grids in the past, reinforced my faith in grids. :-D In fact, one of my friends who REALLY dislikes grids played C&C with us last week. Even though he protests the use of grids when he does play on them he really seems to lose himself in the game. He's very competitive and enjoys tourneys so the grid frees him to focus intensely on the game rather than the artifice of measurements and templates. MB |
donlowry | 27 Jul 2009 11:37 a.m. PST |
How do you handle differences of elevation with hexes/squares? Do they run up the side of hills? Or what? |
MajerBlundor | 27 Jul 2009 12:22 p.m. PST |
In general I use a square's edge to define a change in elevation. The actual model hill under my game mat may not conform to that line 100% perfectly but it's generally close enough. Have never had any problems with them. Squares can also make dead ground easier to define when needed. For example, if an elevation is declared to be relatively flat then a unit on the hill just counts the squares to the hill edge and that's how many squares of dead ground exist beyond that point. And of course it's easier to see when units are fighting "uphill" when using a grid. MB PS Anyone else see the new "Field of Glory" surveyor's tools from Litko? I shudder to think about using those things just to play a game. |
DS6151 | 30 Jul 2009 3:16 a.m. PST |
I have used hexes but I do not like it. I'm also a boardgame player and if I want to use hexes I just play a boardgame. To me the beauty of the miniatures is the visual impact and always found you lose a lot of it using hexes(or squares). I agree with this, it is very well put. As for the "hexes/squares reduce argument" crowd
read this thread. The whole thing is arguments about hexes/squares. By the time you guys have stopped arguing about the fractional angles of the geometric whargble, I've measured and moved my troops eight times. Really it just comes down to what you like, just like everything else. |
MajerBlundor | 30 Jul 2009 5:37 a.m. PST |
I'm also a boardgame player and if I want to use hexes I just play a boardgame. Interesting logic
Since I do home improvement projects using tape measures I guess shouldn't use them in miniature gaming since, if I wanted to use tape measures, I'd build an addition to the house rather than play a miniatures game? And by that logic the good folks who make BattleLore, Memoir '44, Twilight Imperium, etc. should not use miniatures in their games since those are board games and not miniatures games. Roooiiiiight
:-D By the time you guys have stopped arguing about the fractional angles of the geometric whargble, I've measured and moved my troops eight times Having used rulers for 95% of my wargaming since c. 1988 I would strongly disagree with that statement (I converted to squares last year or so). You see, during a game using a grid the decision as to which grid to use is long since made. For example, I use squares which are also used by games such as those from Peter Pig. Once that decision is made actually playing a game is much faster/easier than using rulers. I admit I've wavered myself but last week we happened to play a game with rulers on a grid. My die-hard ruler friends started ignoring the rulers and using the grid for movement since it was vastly more efficient. Grids also avoid the need for surveying equipment such as that used by Field of Glory and DBx players (Litko has just released it's surveying equipment for FoG). Pick up a unit and plop it down in the next square (or hex!) vs using surveying equipment to simply move and wheel a phalanx of pikemen? For speed and accuracy the grid easily beats surveying equipment. Here's what I've observed having evolved to grids: with rulers you're still using "grids" in that you're making discrete moves/ranges of X" just like a grid (eg in Flames of War the virtual grid is 4" and in 40K it's 6"). But you have to measure those distances correctly thousands of times as you play. With a grid you do it ONCE when you make the grid and you're done measuring forever. So I do agree with the comment above for one reason: with a ruler you must measure eight times to make eight moves. With a gird, you make eight moves and don't have to measure even ONCE. MUCH faster with the gird! MB |
Rudysnelson | 30 Jul 2009 8:15 a.m. PST |
As has been mentioned both hexes and squares have been used for miniature gaming. Several age of sail games have used squares in the 1970s. We produced a hex convenrion supplement for converting 'Coastal Command' PT boat rules several years ago. We also released a coversion supplement for the 'Glory!' skirmiah rules. We used it mainly in 15mm in order to use the great terrain and building maps available in the 1980s from Standard (Cry havoc) games. Back in the 1970s I bought several large sheets of green heavy plastic table coverings with hex grids imprinted on them. I saw mainly 20mm or 1/72 tank battles using them. One system that came out prior to the hex gaining popularity was the square map grids using a brick design. Zocchiwas the first to use that. I saw several aviation games use it. |
Grizwald | 30 Jul 2009 9:00 a.m. PST |
"One system that came out prior to the hex gaining popularity was the square map grids using a brick design." We usually call that an "offset squares" grid. Topologically equivalent to a hex grid. |
Simon Oliver Lockwood | 03 Aug 2009 11:46 a.m. PST |
"In all systems that I have played, the system uses either VERTEX facing (the point) or HEX EDGE facing (the flat) but never the twain shall meet in the same system." J.D. Webster's air combat games (Air Superiority, Fighting Wings, etc.) use both. This allows aircraft to make turns in 30 degree increments. Goblintooth's Hostile Aircraft used 30 degree increments as well but that was non-hex based (although you could probably convert it to hex-based). |
MajerBlundor | 03 Aug 2009 12:20 p.m. PST |
IIRC SPI's Air War also used both. MB |
greenknight4 | 01 Apr 2010 5:37 p.m. PST |
|
bcminiatures1 | 02 Apr 2010 8:48 p.m. PST |
Another vote for fantastic thread. At Cold Wars, a group of us set up a "normal" game – no hexes. We just wanted to push our tanks and figs around and mess around with our version of the old Charles Grant WW2 rules. The two commanders are old friends and great gamers – not argumentative, polite – decent gents. Both of them do not like my growing adoption of hexes for other games. But even these two, after a brief time battling – were gently bickering and asking for ref calls on line of sight, where to measure the shot from etc. Now, as mentioned, these two guys are adults and would certainly have reached amicable agreements for each point of contention. But the fact remains, whether as gentlemanly exchanges or raging debates, these decision points take up a lot of precious gaming time. I pointed out to them after a few of these exchanges that if we were playing on a hexed board, we'd have moved past the (very gentlemanly) debates. Though I have to give myself a demerit for being snarky
my point was still obviously true. BCminiatures |
greenknight4 | 05 Apr 2010 4:29 p.m. PST |
Well it took me about 4 hours off and on but I managed to create my own 6 x 12 foot game matt with 6 inch squares. Yes for me it's squares not hexes but I see the beauty inboth so slander meant. My next task is to lighten it up. I wiah I had done this first but I was inside a small condo on a few rainy days. I matt color is a very dark green you know the color as i imagaine most of you have had them as well. I think I'll make up a few odd shaped patterns that I can place down on the cloth and then spray paint with the patterns which will be hollow to try and brighten up the cloth. Hotz Matts are great at this. I know I have 3 or their 4" matts. I'll tale it outside and use a single 8' long table. I can just move it around and then spary different shades of light green and brown on it. |
Rudysnelson | 06 Apr 2010 1:46 p.m. PST |
We are playtesting the brick system used for a new game. Works nice |
sjpatejak | 14 May 2010 11:58 a.m. PST |
"A friend once claimed that offset squares were easier to make than hexes and gave same result. Side of one row is in middle of previous and next row." Your friend is absolutely right. From any square you can enter any of the six adjacent spaces, the same as on on a hex. They're a lot easier to draw. Avalanche uses them on their naval games. link |
RACDVM | 14 May 2010 3:42 p.m. PST |
I am inclined to start using grids for my games but I don't want to make any myself. What companies are making pre-printed mats? |
Wartopia | 15 May 2010 6:28 a.m. PST |
Monday Knight Productions and Hotz Artworks make mats with hexes and squares. |
Martin Rapier | 15 May 2010 10:13 a.m. PST |
Wooo, this is an old thread, nice to see it again. I'm looking at doing some offset squares now, being dissatisfied with hexes for some things. Normal squares work OK for some other things, as do hexes. |
Oldenbarnevelt | 15 May 2010 9:20 p.m. PST |
I don't mind hexes and would certainly like to find an effective one I could use against my opponents. But, squares are definitely out. |
UshCha | 16 May 2010 1:37 p.m. PST |
Not that I would ever use hex or squares but out of interest. A quick sketch on CADDS suggests the error for squares is about -9% to +12%. I.e. depending where you count the squares going from centre to centre a set number of squares compared to the real radius, if you moved without squares. To be fair this is not a major approximation so squares are not much inferior to hexes where the actual figure is exact (I think). |
Dexter Ward | 17 May 2010 5:50 a.m. PST |
If you count a diagonal move on a square grid as 1.5 squares, then the error is actually less than what you get on a hex grid, and you avoid the 'crabwise' movement problem you get on hex grids when not moving with the grain. |
Wartopia | 17 May 2010 5:56 a.m. PST |
Not that I would ever use hex or squares but out of interest. A quick sketch on CADDS suggests the error for squares is about -9% to +12%. Given how some gamers measure that's probably a higher degree of accuracy compared to some of the "rubber rulers" I've seen! :-) |
Smokey Roan | 17 May 2010 9:54 a.m. PST |
Use hex for A Sky Full of Ships. Just much easier, and space combat is beer and pretzels for me. For zombie gaming, I use square grids inside buildings. Makes it so much easier, and goes well with the with Action Point system we use. Lemanser, I have a GREAT war game system on PC (Hannibal's greatest battles, Alexander's greatest battles, and Ceasars greatest battles) that uses bases of @ 8 figures on a hex grid. The phalanxes are two hexs in frontage. When you turn them, they swing on an axis, each degree of turn costs one hex of their linear movement rate.
Would be the same with miniatures on a table. Wish they had the rules (computer determines combat, morale, initiative, etc), because the game is fantastic. Best ancients gaming I've seen,and identical to a table top game . Used Dexter's 1.5 cost for moving diagonal for zombie games, but eventually dropped it. It's now considered "scooting" indoors as opposed to a slower walk, and as zombies can do it too, makes no adavantage.
|
Dave Crowell | 17 May 2010 1:53 p.m. PST |
I like hexes and squares. I also like measuring sticks, open tables and rulers, or what ever else. The oddest so far is Peter Pigs Pieces of Eight 2nd edition. This used three different sized hexes on which were placed 15mm ships with figures on their decks. To move the ships empty hexes were placed in a path adjoining edge to edge, the ship was then placed at the end of the path. A very unusual movement system. Guessing where any one ship would be was not to hard, but trying to track a fleet
|
gregoryk | 17 May 2010 2:19 p.m. PST |
One thing you can do with hexes is 12-directional movement. The best board game example of this is the "Fighting Wings" series of air games from J.D. Webster. You allow movement along the hex spines as well as the hex grid. Works remarkably well. |