"Hex spines vs hex sides" Topic

I'm currently developing some hex-based miniatures games. Whereas classic hex-based board games with little square counters tend to ignore the concept of facing, miniatures immediately suggest it.

My issue is the difference between having units face hex spines and having units face hex sides. Three differences immediately come to mind:

(1) If facing hex spines it is possible for units to line up which looks better aesthetically for the initial deployment in pre-modern games.
(2) A unit facing a hex side will have a front, a rear and four flank sides, or perhaps a three-sided frontal arc and a three-sided rear arc. A unit facing a hex spine will have two-sided front and rear arcs and two flanks. I don't see this as a problem. Either case can be dealt with in whatever way one wants.
(3) When ‘moving forwards', a unit facing a hex spine will be able to slide forwards (while maintaining the same facing) in two radically different directions. The longer the move, the more this will be exaggerated. Of all the differences, this seems to be the most significant, at least in a tactical level game. In particular, a unit will have a great deal of latitude in pouncing on a given target.

I'd welcome comment from people with more experience of playing and developing hex games.

"hex spines" – I assume you mean hex corners?

I usually allow facing either facing hex corners or hex sides.

Yes, I mean hex corners. I thought spine was the right term, but I suppose the spine is formed by the sides of the next two hexes, so corner is clearer.

If you think about the spines vs the corners, it helps a bit with your problem 3. You can say they have to move back and forth over that spine, rather than moving diagonally. They just have flexibility to start towards the left or towards the right.

And of course you can consider 12 points of facing if you allow either. But players have to remember a larger set of conventions.

andy

If you think about the spines vs the corners,

Eh? The OP has clarified that by "hex spines" he meant" hex corners"

As above, don't let them move diagonally, they are effectively moving 'along' the spine but physically they can choose to go into either the left or right adjoining hex.

For some periods/types of action squares work much better than hexes precisely to avoid this sort of issue.

The advantage of facing the hex spine is that elements actually have a reasonably accessible and vulnerable flank, for those eras where it matters. If they face the hex side, they are only effectively vulnerable to rear attacks.

Various fudges are possible, but they all detract from the simplicity of grid regulation. I used to loath the bypass rule in Squad Leader for those sorts of complexity/inconsistency reasons. If you want to let tanks drive through buildings hexes, then just let them.

I would not worry about item 3, let them move into either hex. Another option if it matters is to have units move onto the hexside and assume when they are ON a hexside that they are really in the hex to their right. (or make the hexes large enough that the units can be lined up on one side or the other and can only enter the hex directly in front of them. (That sounds more complicated than it is)

Practically, the Borg commands and Colors series is the biggest hex-based series currently going and is often miniaturized by players. If you expect players of your game to provide their own mat, you should adopt whatever conventions work with hex mats suitable for his games as those are the hex mats in widest circulation.

For the homebrewed hex-based rules I fiddle with off and on, I considered allowing units to face either the vertices or the sides of the hexes, depending on the situation.

A unit in line of battle would face a vertex, have two front hex sides (120 degree arc), two rather narrow flanks of one hex side (60 degrees) each, and a wide rear of two hex sides (120 degrees). Movement would generally be allowed into either front hex (and I have no problem with allowing a unit to move diagonally within that front arc). Facing changes would be restricted (e.g. cost movement or command points or something).

On the other hand, a unit in column of march would face a hex side, giving it a narrow front and rear of one hex side each, and wide flanks of two hex sides each. Movement would be only across the front hex side, but facing changes (particularly if following a road) would be far less restricted than when in line, making the unit (overall) more maneuverable.

Doug

As recently discussed, "bricklay" squares could be another option.

I think Andy hit the nail on the head re (3) with his idea of moving along the spine, and Martin has added an important point re (2) concerning the provision of accessible/vulnerable flanks where that is relevant.

This has re-inclined me towards the corner-facing option, at least for pre-modern warfare. For modern warfare (i.e. 20thC onwards) I'm more inclined to have the units facing a hex side.

I have recently started playing C&C Napoleonics and Ancients and that has had quite an effect on my game design ideas. At the moment I'm working on a set of 'Interwar' rules, and I've compromised on the facing question in the sense that units can move in any direction without penalty (as in C&C) but must end up facing a specific hex side.

The Achtung! Spitfire series (and Air Superiority/Air Strike series) uses hex spine movement. The a/c moves along the spine (spine hex spine hex over 4 movement points, let's say). If the aircraft was turning and it was on a spine, it would slide into the hex in the direction of the turn, and then change facing. This could cause havoc, however, with miniatures, especially in linear warfare, where there are figures/units lined shoulder to shoulder in each hex and adjoining hex-spine.

I am confused. Will someone please explain what you mean by "moves along the spine"?

I actually prefer the simplified C&C system method of having no facing issues to deal with. Let the die roll determine the success of your attack. If you rolled 4 hits, then it WAS a powerfully effective attack, maybe a flank attack after all. I know that it's not everyone's cup of tea though.

"I am confused. Will someone please explain what you mean by "moves along the spine"?"

As in the horrific SL bypass rule, the element is considered to be moving along the thin line connecting one hex to the hex beyond the currently adjacent one.

Terrain-conforming areas:

link
link

@Major B: I take it to mean moving along the line rather than across it, or, move where the hex corners point, rather than cross the hex sides….

Agree with 1 and 2, but not specifically 3. A unit facing a vertex intuitively looks like it readily demonstrates its front (and therefore frontal fire arc), flank and rear.

The two hexes directly forward offer a better compromise (120 degrees) for the fire arc of ranged weapons – while the flat facing unit will be limited to firing only directly ahead (60 degrees) or in an arc of 3 hexes (180 degrees). In practice, I have found the first to be too limiting and the latter to be too liberal.

When a unit faces a flat, a design decision needs to be made as to whether just the 1 hex directly ahead is the front or the three adjacent hexes (i.e. to include 1 hex either side of the central frontal hex). This makes a huge difference to combat capability and fire arcs.

If using the hex vertex as the front, the unit has to be careful during movement that it does not turn and expose its flank – I think this makes for a better game, forcing formations to have better regard for their flanks and is particularly important in tank warfare.

There have been some games that allow a unit to use both vertex and flat to give more perspective to the hex.

Kallistra (producers of hex terrain) have some free rules on their website for using figures on hexes. For anyone wanting a clear (lawyer-like) explanation of how hex and facing combine in a game, I would recommend a download of their rules.

the thin line connecting one hex to the hex beyond the currently adjacent one.

I take it to mean moving along the line rather than across it,

How strange. I'd call that a "hex side" not a "hex spine". Personally, I do not know of any hex based game that uses such movement. In all the hex based games I have either designed or played, movement is ALWAYS across a hex side from one adjacent hex to the next.

But of course the OP was asking about facing, not movement …

Terrain-conforming areas:

emckinney's post seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the topic under discussion (to wit, facing in hex based games) since the examples he cites don't use hexes!

In our hex-based rules, we allow 12 different orientations (edges and corners).

To deal with the variations in front/flank/rear hexes:
We also specify hexes in which you only have 1/2 combat power. Thus, a unit facing an edge has 3 frontal hexes, but 2 of those hexes only allow the unit to fight/fire at half strength.

Depending on your combat resolution system, this can be more or less elegant.

I'd think using hex sides for facing is more intuitive and what players probably expect. And 6 directions is simpler than 12. Simpler is better.

For determining relative orientation just draw a straight line between the two units. If it can cross the front hex edge it's in the front arc. If it can't it's flank unless it can cross a rear hex edge, then it's rear.

Allow movement and shooting only out of the front hex side. Require a face change with a movement and shooting penalty to change facing to either the right or left adjacent front hex. So it's more effective to align the unit in the direction intending to shoot but still possible to shoot to the right or left.

For spotting, allow spotting out of the whole front arc but impose a penalty if you can't draw a straight line from the target through the spotter's front hex side.

I guess one issue with this is with flanks of 120 degrees (doubled) and front facings of 60 degrees, maneuvering for flank becomes proportionally more possible and may dominate game play.

How strange. I'd call that a "hex side" not a "hex spine". Personally, I do not know of any hex based game that uses such movement. In all the hex based games I have either designed or played, movement is ALWAYS across a hex side from one adjacent hex to the next.

In the 1970s there was a Napoleonic naval game that positioned ships on the apex point of the hexes and moved along the 'spines'.