"Campaign maps – nodes, squares, hexes or??" Topic

Over the years I have followed discussions of the benefits of using squares, hexes, zones or nodes for map design.

Nodes are fine if you can give names to each junction but become difficult to identify the further back in time one designs a campaign.

Using a historical map I have found the placement of nodes a problem when one considers the time and distance to be covered by armies marching between them.

However, this factor became less a problem as better generals could negotiate these distances in less time.

Which system to use I suppose is dependent on the purpose of the map and two examples come to mind; tracking the conquest of unknown territories such as Rome's crossing of the Rhine under Augustus and the civil war of 69 AD with competing armies utilizing a road network.

Which map system do you have a preference for?

Cheers,
Robert

Nodes or areas.

Nodes.

Nodes

Nodes – however movement between nodes should be relatively the same amount of time, represent a maximum time of movement or otherwise noted. I find zones can balance that out

Nodes, or as I call it, point-to-point movement.

For large scale campaigns I prefer zones ever since I played SPI's Fall of Rome. Otherwise, nodes, but that's from my operations research background.

Nodes have been the best way in all successful campaigns I have managed. While it is great to give all of them names, even in acw campaigns there are not always meaningful locations to use for their names. Of course, it all depends on the scale of the campaign theater. For your post-Punic War Spanish campaign that you are working on, I would think that it should be possible to name each region based on local features or maybe even local tribes.

"Which system to use I suppose is dependent on the purpose of the map"

Indeed.

In meta terms a node or area is only relevant in what it represents: victory points, resource ownership, access to other nodes/areas.

"the placement of nodes a problem when one considers the time and distance to be covered by armies marching between them."

Well, you can make it such that some nodes take longer than one turn to traverse. This is often seen in space games where traveling from one system to another may take a few turns, and while en route you may be out of communication with your HQ, so once you commit an army to move to another system/node/area, you are committing to going several turns without it actually fighting.

Nodes work well for us.

Thank you all for the reponses.

The map created for Hispania is still a work in progress as squares may change to zones and these will eventually have names denoting tribes.

Currently each square is occupied by a clan representing one of the three Spanish sub-lists (Iberian, Celtiberian or the Lusitanian).

Not all clans favoured war against Rome but some did support the Roman administration and supplied mercenaries.

This does open the door for clan rivalry; having Spanish troops fighting one another.

From your brief description I think zones may be a better graphical representation. The zones subdued or in league with Rome can be coloured differently, giving a clear picture of where the legions may march through with impunity.

For about 7 years, it was all "nodes, nodes, nodes". Lately I have come around to the use of hexagons or sqquares as the OP has designed on his website. There are several reasons for this change of heart:

1. The relative ease of drawing fresh maps on a pre-printed grid. I suck at free-hand zone placement. A grid guides my "hand" so to speak.
2. The nice maneuvering that can result. Armies get a movement factor, and it costs varying amounts for different hexes. The old "there are almost no places from which you can move an army in 6 directions" is bunkum. You can move an army pretty much anywhere (as history has repeatedly shown) IF you are prepared to pay for it / take the gamble.
3. The feel of a country having an "interior" to explore. The idea of a node called "Greece" say, is far too "Axis and Allies" for me.
4. I find serious difficulties "calibrating" a node map to have the right number and spacing of zones. I find it easier to work off a map by placing a grid over it. Then I fill in features where they are, and if it is too easy to get from A to B, you can adjust army move rates, or add minor terrain features.

So for ease of production and flexibility, it's a regular grid for me all the way. Well done to the OP. Your grid maps look good, join together easily, and seem to wrok well.

In a choice between squares and hexes, I tend to say hexes.

If you look at how VBAM sets up it's 'node' maps, it uses hexes, and then decides whether a hex side is a link or not.

Just as easy to make a hex side 'blocked.'

Doug

I prefer original maps (for 18th to 20th century) with streets. In the end it is similar to nodes. It is always possible to move without a street, but it is so hampered, that it is usually not worth it.

Edit: Sorry, i didnt noticce this is on the ancient board. For ancients i prefer nodes.

Edit: Sorry, i didnt noticce this is on the ancient board. For ancients i prefer nodes.

Must voice my apologies as well, though I suspect it may have been a 'bug' causing our error. ;->=

Doug