3D printing plans?! What should be my next step?

32 replies [Last post]

Wed, 09/09/2026 - 06:05

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

Made a new topic for this. I don't want to hijack another topic. But this one follows up on this one:

https://www.bgdf.com/node/24521?page=1

It is merely a top down view. I have been thinking a lot about what to do for my board game(s). And the KISS method kept kicking out.

However, I reached a point where I cannot remove things anymore. Or don't have smarter idea's anymore.

The idea is simple. Making the puzzle pieces for a 3D board.
There are 5; 1 main hexagon and 4 ramps:

1. The main hexagons. Blue. All pieces are going to be bland in colour. I think I will pick brownscale as basis. And I am planning on printing stickers to paste these on the hexagons. The sides as well. The picture is a top down view. So, I wonder about the thickness needed for the hexagons.

Ramps in 4 variations:
I coloured them, but I just realized I didn't bother with the colour blind when I was in a hurry, my apologies. Still, I hope some can make sense out of it. I added numbers in a hurry.

2. Small ramps. Green. They are for the "craters" if you will.

3. Big ramps. Yellow. They are for the "hills" if you will.

4 and 5. Connecting ramps for in between small and big ramps. Red and Orange (again, sorry). And together they can connect in a huge ramp going in 2 direcitons. I figured, I cannot escape the need for a L and R variation.

A complete crater would need 6 green ramps (2)
A complete hill would need 6 yellow ramps (3)

Higher ground with 1 entrance. 1 green ramp
Lower ground with 1 entrance. 1 green ramp

Higher ground with 2 connected entrances. 1 orange and 1 red ramp (4 and 5)
Lower ground with 2 connected entrances. 2 green ramps.

Higher ground with 3 connected entrances. 1 orange, 1 red and 1 yellow ramp. (4, 5 and 3)
Lower ground with 3 connected entrances....3 green ramps.

***

But what should my next step be?

- Finding a suitable 3D printer and test out the possible heights?
After all, my prototype version requires 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 mm ramps. That is 4x5=20 different pieces. I will settle for just 1 ramp height if nessesary.

- Instead of diagonal ramps. Simply flat pieces that are half the height?
I could stack these :) Printing stickers becomes simpler as well. It just looks, uglier. But it servers the purpose.

- Finding another way to make the pieces?
Plastics (Possible).
Cardboard (Possible).
Paper (Possible but No).
Styrofoam (Maybe).
Wood (No)
Other options?

- Search for if anyone has made these yet?
At least the hexagons....I could cut out the other pieces... hmmm. ABS is too hard to cut though. So is proper PS.

- Looking into easy ways to connect the pieces?
Plenty of ways, but this requires 3D printing.
Unless I find small magnets. Is there magnetic paper or something avaiable?

- Looking into easy ways to make 3D maps for at least a blank terrain with the required ramps?
If I design maps, the ramps and height of the hexagons get priority 1. They always had. The AI seems to be unable to grasp this from a 2D map with numbers.

***

A question for @questccg:

Should I make a height map for that one particular map? And see if the AI can make that in 3D? So, no art yet, just a 3D map from a 2D map with numbers.

Wed, 09/09/2026 - 16:54

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Let me start by saying this...

Your Hex Idea (I read the OP in the thread) is interesting. How so??? Well you used part of the "edges" to "simulate" the "ramps" and such. Or more like elevation changes in the terrain. RED being the highest and GREEN been the lowest.

This makes SENSE... And doesn't mean that we need a "Topological" Map. In a way it is exactly that: directions for the AI to understand what elevations are given the ridges. Blue is water and you can create it at any level.

My problem I fear is that AI won't understand what to do... And something that your "Rock Formations" made CLIFFs in the last attempt. I think that overall I tried to make the MAP as "accurate" as possible even with some flaws. And BTW I TRIED to fix them and the result WAS EVEN WORST!

So what I would do is NESTED "Rock Formations". One Rock Formation followed by another Rock Formation giving the terrain a sense of LAYERS.

I would go BINARY:

questccg wrote:

Use the "Rock Formations" to indicate an UPPER ELEVATION and make it "binary" meaning is it LEVEL or is it a CLIFF???

That kind of BINARY approach could allow you to make CLIFFs and MAYBE have level ground instead of "RAMPS" it's the terrain that is the "ramp" gradually.

I don't know IF I can express myself clearer.

questccg wrote:

As for you question (Height Map) ... I'm not 100% sure the AI will be able to handle it TBH. Your looking for the "Cadillac" solution and I am proposing a Compromise for a "Honda" (something in-between).

I've learnt this the hard way... Nobody makes the "Cadillac" solution. Why? Because it takes too much time and experimentation (Look I can only create 3 images before my account is out of credits). Nobody really wants the Fiat either... They want something "roomier" and more "average"...

What we can TRY is this:

You create 8 tiles like in this last sample... Make it a TOP VIEW with trees, different grass colors ... Some water (Not an entire tile... Like you did in the map that I rendered...) and we'll see IF the AI comprehends or not.

IF YOU are willing to put in that work... I'll give it a TRY. I'm curious because your IDEA is SMART (the ramps)... But will it WORK this IDK. I don't know if AI can take that KIND of INFORMATION... TBH!

***

So I wanted to wrap up with two (2) recaps:

#1> If you accept binary solution: Cliffs or Level... Well then you already know HOW(?) to do this and you have a sample INPUT and OUTPUT.

#2> If you want to add ramps with colors... That's something we can TRY... But I am unsure if it will work or not. Never the less it may be worth an attempt...

However it is ON YOU to create the MAP for those 8 tiles (not white and has trees and a river, etc. etc. And CLIFFs too...

I can MAYBE help... IDK, I don't have all the pieces (Rocks/Cliffs), trees and water, etc. etc. You would have to MAKE it and I will see if I can use prompts to GENERATE the 3D Terrain from that SAMPLE.

It's up to you... Let me know what YOU want to do.

Sincerely.

Note #1: Here's the issue... If you accept BINARY solution... This means that you can do like "Starcraft 1" have some area where the terrain levels off (no need for ramps) and have multiple levels for more than just ONE (1) CLIFF...

Anyhow we can find time to discuss it further.

Wed, 09/09/2026 - 21:23

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Some additional thoughts

X3M wrote:

A question for @questccg:

Should I make a height map for that one particular map? And see if the AI can make that in 3D? So, no art yet, just a 3D map from a 2D map with numbers.

OpenAI's ChatGPT cannot convert to 3D Models. You would need to TRY something designed for 3D like "Meshy". I've never used it ... I just know that "apparently" it converts 2D Images to 3D Models. But I don't think it works in term of "Hexes". That's the problem...

So it does work for some applications and not others. I'm pretty sure that it will not make "Hexes" it may be closer to the "Typological Map" with elevations but not ordered by Hexes.

If you were coding some kind of Video Game... Well maybe you COULD generate Levels with "Meshy" but it would be different than "Hexes"... I honestly have never used it. But from what I've seen it's for making 3D models.

I also don't know how much it costs... So I'm not going to get into all of that TBH. If you want to try ... Feel free. Like I said IDK what the result will be and how much it would cost.

So maybe there is a CHANCE it works... My best estimate is more like 30/70 in that 30% it works and 70% it probably won't.

Note #1: Also notice that I do have experience with 3D Printing and the COLOR of the 3D object is a FLAT COLOR it doesn't paint the terrain the color you WANT.

That's why Warhammer Models need to be PAINTED by HAND and why there are SOME people who actually PAINT MODELS for a living (I've seen one guy in the UK that was going to do some painting of our 3D Models).

Our models are two (2) colors: the color of the STAND (Red, Green, Blue and Purple) and the starships (Light Gray). They were made individually and when assembled together you can place the starships on their respective Faction's stand.

So it's not as EASY as you THINK it is with 3D Models... Do some more research and you'll find that I am NOT telling you falsehoods.

Best of luck with you exploration of the 3D Printing and Modelling universe.

Note #2: Apparently SOME 3D Printers can print multiple colors. Having said that... I don't know how much they cost. I had my STL files for my "Dual Dice" (DD) made by a local 3D Printer and it cost me over $5.00 CAD per dice to make a 3D Printer ONE-COLOR Model. And the quality was ONLY OK. There was one side that just needed to be sanded down because it was not FLAT (smooth). And I was told this was the part that connected the dice to the Printer.

I imagine that those COLOR 3D Printers must cost quite a few bucks ($$$). But I don't know. I just wanted to post a correction about the filament and how SOME 3D Printers CAN in fact print various colors.

I just don't know how expensive they are. I mean $5.00 for a dice... Are you serious??? And it was a 16mm x 16mm x 16mm shape. So I can imagine how much Tiles are going to cost IF you can model them as 3D Hexes you can piece together...

Again best of luck with that venture... I'm sure if you do proceed it's going to be pretty costly. Not unlike my FREE OpenAI ChatGPT ISO Views... But you may find someone who CAN do what you want...

Wed, 09/09/2026 - 22:52

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Also ...

I forgot to mention that our "TradeWorlds" (TW) Miniatures and stands were made using moulds. And it was NOT 3D Printing. But we did have a 3D Modeler who make the STL Files that were used to produce the moulds and later the Miniatures made for the game.

That's also a 1-Color process... And I got to choose the colors of the stands as being Pantone Colors they could match at 100%.

Going back to 3D Printing... 4 to 16 colors and I'm not 100% sure of the end result. I'm not getting the vibe that Color 3D Printing is the same as Artistry that is painted using a magnifying glass and a paint palette of colors.

But I would be speaking through my hat... Since I DON'T have experience with that... So all I'll say is that maybe SOME color is possible ... But 3D Printing is awfully expensive and limited when it comes to colors.

I don't think the ads are 100% accurate showing a rendered 3D Object that has been printed and looks 100% like the 3D image on the screen... I'm just saying...

Thu, 09/10/2026 - 03:13

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

Grey scale with stickers

It is for prototype only.

The plan is simple:
- Printing the hexagons, test 1 needs 3, test 2 needs 7, test 3 will be 36 (stackable versions)
- Printing the 4 types of ramps, 6 of each
- Measuring the shapes for their surfaces since 3D printing might not be accurate
- Printing the stickers
- Pasting the stickers
- Printing a grid that can hold the hexagons as tight as required
- Building a map

Or, I use another material that is less costly. We got some plastics at work. They are 1 mm thick. Used the same for the whiteboard pieces. Although, cutting out a somewhat bigger shape. And then also have to stack them in order to be, a "block". Will proof to be more tedious. That said, 3D printing would yield the best systematic results.

If I can get my hands on a lot of cardboard. That would be great. But parts of the plan would be no more.

The main idea of it all is that the stacking portion of the hexagon will also serve to hold the ramp pieces in place.
No clicking, just gravity and its work.

Thu, 09/10/2026 - 17:20

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Gray with stickers... Got it!

X3M wrote:

It is for prototype only.

I understand. But you're leaning into the "Warhammer 40,000" universe (a bit)!

X3M wrote:

...- Measuring the shapes for their surfaces since 3D printing might not be accurate.

Umm... I think if they can make complex parts like gun triggers and CAD/CAM... I don't think "accuracy" will be the problem. The quality of the Models... Now that remains to be seen. But know that it's a problem on YOUR end not on the end of the 3D Printer.

X3M wrote:

...The main idea of it all is that the stacking portion of the hexagon will also serve to hold the ramp pieces in place. No clicking, just gravity and its work.

Realize that if the part had "some-kind" of inter-locking mechanism that would ensure that the MAP stays together as player play their MINIS on the area of play. Just a reminder...

Best of luck with this "experiment". I hope you can try all that you want to. And I realize that "making prototypes" costs a bit of money. Not as much as a whole 1,000+ units of a game ... But never the less it requires SOME investment by the designer. Always has and always will...

Best!

Thu, 09/10/2026 - 17:38

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Warhammer 40,000

questccg wrote:

I understand. But you're leaning into the "Warhammer 40,000" universe (a bit)!

Models Needed for Play:

Small Games (500 points): You need about 10 to 30 models.
Medium Games (1,000 points): You need about 20 to 50 models.
Large Games (2,000 points): You need about 30 to 100+ models, depending on whether you play an elite force or a large horde army.

Faction Count:

There are around 26 main active armies in Warhammer 40k. Each faction features dozens of specific unit types and unique character models.

I know Warhammer 40k is a bit "Dystopian" and a bit "Futuristic" too! So your game is more "Modern Day" or the 1980 or 1990... Right??? They have a catalog of over 10,000 SKUs. So it's a BIG franchise ... Not something small.

But I think your concept with PHYSICAL TILES is more like "Heroscape" TBH. The Warhammer 40,000 link is just they type of game ... Maybe more and maybe less. TBD. We'll have to wait and see what comes of that prototype!

Sincerely.

Thu, 09/10/2026 - 18:09

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

Once a proper map has been made....

The next step would be seeing what kind of models we can use.

Either, we go for a lot of health and only a few units.
Or a lot of units with few health each.

With lots of health?
H/D=3 ; 5, 20, 45, 80, 125, 180 etc.
With d6-2 as basic damage die.
H/D=8 ; 20, 80, 180 etc.
With d6-1 as basic damage die.

Without a damage die, thus least ammount of health?
H/D=3 ; 1, 2, (3), 4, (6), 8, (12), 16 etc.

If the map succeeds, I could even look into the threshold again. But I rather track damage.

Thu, 09/10/2026 - 20:07

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Well you get on that "proper map"...

But even with "Heroscape" the amount of "extra assets" like Trees, Bridges, Walls and so forth... You're not going to get an AMAZING amount of assets for your terrain. That's why IMHO I would explore maps in ISO seeing as you ALREADY KNOW HOW to make them and then the AI can be prompted to create more realistic looking maps from those "Explicative" SOURCE Maps.

I know you have some IMPORTANT (to you) reasons to further EXPLORE 3D terrain. But TBH... "Heroscape" doesn't impress me at all. I would prefer more graphic intensive Map solutions like the one's we've devised because the level of REALISM is far greater than any 3D Terrain.

And don't get me wrong for saying that "Heroscape" allows you to build pretty complex terrain maps ... Still they are more "bare" or "empty" than the maps I've shown you the AI can render from your 2D SOURCE Map.

From my perspective you already got a bulletproof solution: AMAZING MAPS in ISO view. The only issue missing is IF we can introduce ramps to make for several LEVELS of a Terrain Map.

That doesn't mean you can't explore 3D... I'm just saying it would be nice to see if the AI can ADD "Ramps" to levels that require them. Obviously not all maps do ... Like the SOURCE map which renders beautifully without any need for RAMPS...

In any case... I know you work and such. But I'd love to discuss making ANOTHER attempt at a LAYERED Terrain Map. Maybe we can discuss this further once you've gotten to experiment with 3D Terrain (As you seem fixated by that and not the progress we've done to make REALISTIC looking terrain using an ISO view and a SOURCE Map file...)

You have your own priorities ... So let me know IF and WHEN(?) you can make me a terrain map with Elevation Levels that require RAMPS.

Best!

Fri, 09/11/2026 - 13:45

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

Maps...

A map with objects is unplayable.
A map with systematic mistakes, is undesirable.

Hence flat hexagons.

Then a printed sticker on top for the art.

Your renders all have the same fatal mistake.

Can you make a hexagon hill?
Not surrounded by cliffs, but by ramps if you will. If you can have only 3 out of 6. It is game over. The ai failed.

Fri, 09/11/2026 - 15:07

#10

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Well technically the AI did NOT FAIL but...

I get your point about the RAMPS being in only 3 LOCATIONS. That is due to the ISO View which limits what can be seen. And I know this is a LIMITATION since the map is NOT 3D... It's ISO.

I would NOT go and say the "AI FAILED"... It did as in all those games like "Starcraft", "Warcraft", "Age of Empires, "Command & Conquer", "Dune", etc. etc.

And the list goes on for EACH ONE of those RTS. See those older GAMES LOOKED 3D but they were NOT. They were ISOMETRIC which is like a partial perspective which gives a FEEL of a 3D Terrain with some limitations. Now with Unreal, Unity and other 3D-oriented platforms... 3D IS Possible.

In any event ... I (personally) would like to try to SEE if the AI can HANDLE "Ramps" in the three (3) positions. I know you think this is bad because it is not fully 3D. I don't really care... As long as the map is PLAYABLE and there could be LEVELS with RAMPS.

That's my angle: I want to see IF we can get the AI to do RAMPS.

What do you think??? Please let me know.

Fri, 09/11/2026 - 18:17

#11

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

Remember?

That the view angle is important?

The cliffs, don't have to be perfect vertical in the 3D mind. But an angle of lets say, 60 degrees?

Then if the view of the terrain is at 75 degrees, not 90 degrees. And parrallel (we watch from "infinite" distance)

The "front" view of a cliff is 3.
Then the "back" will be 1.

So, if we have a hexagon drawing, the other 2 cliffs. Will probably be roughly around 2.33 and 1.67 wide.

The pictures used can simply be crushed. Depending on the angle.

Fri, 09/11/2026 - 21:52

#12

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Something to consider

X3M wrote:

Remember... That the view angle is important?

Yeah I forgot about that. But there is another POSSIBILITY which is closer to DM-ing and playing SINGLE PLAYER "Missions"!

So what if players ALTERNATE between Dungeon Master or more appropriately termed "Field Commander" (FC).

So Player #1 starts off Mission #1 and Player #2 the MM controls the opposing Army making it more realistic in terms of COMBAT.

Then the HEX View angle is UNIMPORTANT. It's in the eyes of the Player PLAYING the MISSION! The FC units and the adventure (or mission) is controlled by Player #2 to react to Player #1 moves and decisions.

So instead of only ONE (1) Mission ... You design SIX (6) of them: 3 for each Player...

This is less of a "Wargame" and closer to an ADVENTURE like "Command & Conquer" or story-modes in Warcraft or Starcraft.

This is another possibility and could make for a FUN ADVENTURE which is LESS "Wargame" and more "RTS" story-mode.

Could be COOL! Tell me what you think???

Fri, 09/11/2026 - 22:52

#13

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Holy sh!t... That SOUNDS AMAZING!

Field Commander

Live out the adventure of "Platoon Captains" trying to accomplish Missions to save the day!

Each Mission has it's own Objectives, Challenges and Story-Line.

Players Alternate between the "Captain" and the "Field Commander" for a total of six (6) Custom tailored missions that can be played by each Player.

Something like that!?!?! Would be cool "Game Name" too!

Tell me what YOU think???

Best.

Update #1: OMG there is ALREADY a PS5 game called "Field Commander"... Sucks. Well maybe the choice is in the extended name like:

Field Commander Elite

Or something like

Field Commander: The Wargame

Or something like

Field Commander: Tactical Warfare

Just some of my ideas... I'm sure you can come up with more ideas...

Sat, 09/12/2026 - 05:22

#14

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

What has that to do with the topic?
The view angle is in regard of how to drawn the map.
I wasn't talking about other game mechanics.

Unfortunately, this forum doesn't allow for much. I could easily make some drawings, make a photo, then send it to you in Discord. Then you know what I mean.

Sat, 09/12/2026 - 18:21

#15

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

I had a question???

X3M wrote:

What has that to do with the topic?

In a Mission View ... The Angle is always towards the PLAYER and so an ISO View is a "short-cut" to balance out the area of play to be UNIVERSAL to all players.

But similarly in a Mission View ... You also have a "Captain" who is embarking on the Mission and the "Field Commander" who controls the opposing forces and is the person that Narrates the story and the actions that occur in the area of play (the Field).

X3M wrote:

The view angle is in regard of how to drawn the map. I wasn't talking about other game mechanics.

Yes this is TRUE because we accepted something that is a part of the ISO View: the trees. But Warcraft HAD trees for lumber so IT APPEARED 3D when it was not. Our version of trees is an isometric angle and therefore not fully compatible with the player playing from the opposite side of the VIEW.

I saw your concept for the "Displaced Hex" according to the ANGLE of the hill. But does that work with "stacking" (was the question that I asked too...?)

I don't know. So I just asked you a question. Let me know your thoughts.

Sun, 09/13/2026 - 08:34

#16

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

It will stack

If you use the concept of "bleed out".
(if there is a better word for it, let me know)

The example send, was inside the main hexagon. Then, it will not work.

Let me whip out an example with the outside. Because, the concept is simple. The higher hexagon will shift upwards, exactly the ammount that is missing from the upper ramp/cliff.

Now, for a 2D map, the cliff needs that 60 degree. The 3D printed map allows for cliffs of 90 degrees, there it doesn't matter.

So, the 2D map with AI art would have bleedouts everywhere.

I send you a new picture in discord. Clearly only an example.

I think I need an hour or 2 uninterrupted to make a complete schematics with measurments. Then draw the visuals only.

Mon, 09/14/2026 - 00:47

#17

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

Hmmm?

Height differences?

1 is easy.
2 is double.
3 is tripple.

I figured that having the correct ramps for all would be best. And a very steep ramp would still act as a crossing.

Vertical would occur at 6 or more. Since it would be madness to have steeper ones.

However, it does mean that......?
A ramp already being 2 heigh would be over 45 degrees? And not recognised as a ramp by thennitpickings?

Fri, 09/18/2026 - 14:52

#18

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

Trivia; what have I considered so far?

Latest option; the 3D print plan

-stackable hexagons
-small ramps
-big ramps
-mixed ramps type L
-mixed ramps type R

The ramps are only needed when the units can go up or down.
The 3D prints can be grayscale. And stickers can be designed for the materials.
At mass production, there will be obviously plastic molding instead.
Everything is flat, for other objects to be placed upon. Example: a 3D printed tree can be placed on a 2D printed tree. But the main goal will remain, objects can be placed upon said hexagon.

Nitpicking; higher height difference requires a bigger ramp to look good. But we can keep 1 and perhaps make a 6th stackable piece for extending the ramp a bit from the bottom, these can have the same stickers as the cliffs, but the right size.

No bleed outs
-stackable hexagons
-top hexagons with 1 ramp
-top hexagons with 2 ramps at pos 1 and 2
-top hexagons with 2 ramps at pos 1 and 3....
-top hexagons with 5 ramps
idk, a lot of different shaped hexagons

The good part is that they are all, almost the same size and weight. The bad part is that you need to look for them in the box and there are waaaay to many shapes this way.

No bleed outs, but internal?
-stackable hexagons
-stackable cliffs
-stackable ramps that can replace the cliffs

You have all seen that some of my map designs have the hexagon contain 6 of the same shapes within their perimeter. These are either flat now, or as a ramp.

Nitpicking?;
You really need a lot of these stackable cliffs. And putting stickers on them really takes a long time.
To kickstart this idea, I would initially have the terrain types in pure form, using their colour for the printing.
Forest; dark green
Grass; light green
Water; blue
Rocks; brown
Sand; yellow
Urban; black
Concrete; grey
Snow; white

Then again, perhaps this method is even better. Since we only need 3 different parts. And the problem at the OP idea is immediately solved.

And we can add a 4th piece, the reversed ramp. Which can be combined with a ramp and a cliff for making a ramp that is 2 high. Heck, this sounds so much better now.

Nitpicking; A small map with 27 tiles? At least 162 cliffs that only serve as the bottom pieces. 189 blocks....2/3rd of the lego sets have less than this. The OP idea requires only hexagons with a few stacked on top. Of course still a lot of small pieces, but those are not mandatory.

Sat, 09/19/2026 - 07:55

#19

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

I think...

But everyone can voice their oppinion...

https://www.etsy.com/de-en/listing/4554380830/modular-magnetic-hex-terra...

So, here we have the hexagons. And objects on top. The hexagons connect with magnets. I think that having the extra pieces for in between (with magnets), will serve as cliffs or ramps.

A ramp needs only 1 side to connect. A cliff 2, perhaps shifting the magnet to 1 side will help. Then again, if I want to have a hexagon serve 2 terrains, the magnets need to be centered.

The upper most top layer needs stickers on top. The ramps need to have stickers, no doubt about that. They too are only placed on top. All the visible cliffs also need to get stickers, but we can do that last. If the hexagons are brown scale, that would be perfect, since most terrain will have rocks for cliffs.

***

Now then. Perhaps, it is wise to have smaller and bigger hexagons. So, the cliffs are only added if they are....different.

The pieces:
-Inner hexagons; altered cliff or ramp property imminent
-Hexagons; main board
-Ramp going down inwards
-Ramp going down outwards
-Cliffs; 6, combined with the inner hexagons, getting to the same size as the main board hexagon

We get 5 pieces again. But not only are most pieces, used less. They are simple.

As for properties of/for the game mechanics?
I could limit the player in placement for a smaller hexagon to...9/16th that of the main hexagon space value.
Solely looking at the hobby game:
In 3600 games, that results in 2025 (or 2000)
In 4800 games, that results in 2700
In 6000 games, that results in 3375 (i guess we make this 3300?)
In 24 games, that results in 13.5
You know, might as well say that only 50% is allowed.
Or 40%, with roughly a 10% cut with each inward ramp or...cliff? hmmm.

3600 game?
Ramp reduces space with 300
Cliff reduces space with 400
Crater with 6 inward ramps is 1800 space
Pit with 6 cliffs is 1200 space
Oh man, that sounds good. But needs a bit of testing. 3600-400 and then a #/6 calculation isn't good. So, if we make that cliff a -450, the pit will have only 900 left.
But this is for the....math players. So, I will avoid that as much as possible for the first years. Or simply provide a table for reference.

As for height differences... We can clearly make only a height difference of 2.
If we place an inward ramp and outward ramp together, this will clearly be made visible to the players. And it is neat to see. At least, in my head.

We could make a ramp with a height difference of 3 or 4 or even 5. By having the ramps shift in height.
3? We will have the 2 ramps have a 1 height difference.
4? We will have the 2 ramps have a 1 height difference with their smaller hexagons.
5? We will have the 2 ramps have a 1 height difference with any neighbour.
Oh man, this checks out! And it serves my game perfectly.

I want to do this! I want a 3D printer now!

Sat, 09/19/2026 - 19:54

#20

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

UTed2

Helped me visualize. Sorry, the pics are only in Discord.

The 2 hexagons with the cliff addition and the 2 ramps.
The hexagons and the cliff are each 1 brush, the 2 ramps have an additon and substraction (didn't know how to do otherwise).

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/740349248738164858/155101488217...

As for the 5 height difference?

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/740349248738164858/155101493551...

Clearly having the ramps having a slope of 45 degrees is not wise. Perhaps going for 22.5 degrees. Or if the editor allows it, even only 15 degrees. The 5 height difference clearly shows it is possible to make decent looking mountains that are still slightly passable.

A right....the rule to going from low to high terrain. -1/6th per height difference. So, going 5 levels means that only 1/6th of the troops can make this with 1 action. Thus, climbing a mountain that steep is unwise, but not impossible. Ranged units also get a penalty per height difference. And a range substraction of 1. HɐɐɐRaaaH!
If we have 5 smaller hexagons stacked, we need only 4 cliffs and the 2 ramps. And of course, we got the 2 bigger hexagons. The total is 13 blocks. If we went all around, we need 5 more big hexagons, and 20 cliffs with 10 ramps. 48 blocks. This is....important for me to know.

Sat, 09/19/2026 - 23:14

#21

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

I just wanted to say ONE thing

If you can make a RAMP from one level to a higher level (elevation of 3) I think that would be enough to satisfy most Missions and Map Designs. Sometimes having a "constraint" can allow you to focus on what is important:

Quote:

Maybe use those Etsy Game Tiles and combine them with a 45 Degree Ramp like in the more traditional RTS games (like Starcraft 1, Warcraft 1, Age of Empires, Command & Conquer, Dune, etc. etc.)

So instead of introducing a whole BUNCH of 3D Printed pieces... You would generate ONE TYPE of RAMP which is a 45 Degrees and connect 1 Level with a 3 Level elevation. And then have a RAMP for each COLOR but only ONE (1) 3D File and/or shape.

KISS.

Again this is MY POV... I like to keep things TIGHT and SIMPLE. Avoid too much wasted effort on too many different pieces which will hardly support too much variability. But (from my POV) you like to make things differently than I do.

So I'm NOT telling you what to do. I'm just presenting what I WOULD DO.

The ADDED VALUE of ONE (1) TYPE of RAMP adds value to the terrain tiles. And if it can behave like those classic RTS games then you should be able to create as many elevations as you like and make the terrain as complex as you like... Knowing that to go from Elevation 1 to Elevation 3 requires ONE RAMP (and the right color). That could ADD value to those ETSY Game Tiles.

IDK how you could get your own MAGNETS into the RAMPS. That would be cool indeed ... If the RAMPS could connect with the Hexes used for the Terrain (Etsy Tiles).

That to me, would be the MOST VALUE out of making a mountain out of a molehill literally.

I'm not trying to detract from you 3D efforts. But to me ONE 45 Degree Ramp that connects Level 1 with Level 3 ... Would be the ONLY 3D Object I would model and offer along with the 3D Magnetic Hexes (which are very cool indeed).

Cordially.

Sat, 09/19/2026 - 23:27

#22

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Oh yeah...

I would buy a ton of those 3D Terrain Tiles (With the Magnets) before that ETSY store shuts down. They have 17 sales in 5 Months... Not good. Then again all of these Custom Selling Platforms reach hardly ANY volume to make anything worth while to sell.

Let's say 17 Sales x 50 Euros = 850 Euros in 6 Months...

That's hardly anything to be getting excited over TBH.

I just think that YOU should contact this guy and talk directly with him EVEN if you buy a bunch of his tiles. And you know the reason WHY(?) I would suggest that be the most important connection...

Maybe you can convince him to CREATE ONE RAMP TYPE (Level 1 to Level 3) and add the magnets to connect everything together... And then place one HUGE order with him for maybe like 500 Euros or something WORTHWHILE investing in... And then maybe he can make the RAMP for you...

See where I am going with this???

Anyhow... Continue with your efforts... But you may be better suited to have that GUY Cameron make the RAMP in each colors and then buy a package of 6 RAMPS of the SAME COLOR for 12 Euros (or something like that) ...

If you have this guy's CONTACT information... You can E-MAIL him and discuss what he MIGHT be willing to do... To create that ONE (1) TYPE of RAMP.

That would be my APPROACH...

Best!

Sat, 09/19/2026 - 23:43

#23

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Some additional thoughts

This is why(!) I REFUSE to SELL my "Dual Dice" (DD) on webstores that charge a MONTHLY fee. If I make $0.00 in sales... Why should I waste money on the platform which is making me nothing. It's enough that I have to monitor the webstore as a daily activity (to see if there are new orders) and that the actual platform charges a Commission Rate for EACH SALE...

ETSY shops don't last very long TBH. And I've seen people STRUGGLING to make any type of sales on ETSY and other platforms like Shopify.

Take for example these cool dice made in Montreal:

https://www.etsy.com/ca/shop/TabletopTinkerers

75 Sales in 5 YEARS. 75 x $50 CAD = $3,750 CAD / 5 Years = $750 CAD per year.

Are you joking me??? That's like almost NOTHING TBH. And their dice are REALLY nice too.

So my focus would be contact CAMERON ASAP and talk to him about making ONE (1) TYPE RAMP that he could sell along side his HEX TILES.

Mark my words... That shop is going to disappear in the next year or so. A lot of cool ideas but nothing materializing TBH.

In any event... This is my own POV. And what I would prioritize especially IF you LIKE his Magnetic Hex Tiles. Why waste time with 3D Printing when you can get this DUDE CAMERON to make something for you with MAGNETIC connectivity too.

The BOTTOMMOST level is a HEX and the next 2 Levels are a RAMP and it goes from Level 1 to Level 3 and voila... You get 6 RAMPS per set of ONE Color... and they interconnect like the NORMAL HEXES. Same deal ... But instead of being a FLAT HEX, you have a FLAT HEX AND A RAMP...

Wishing you all the best with this 3D Experimentation.

Kind regards.

Sun, 09/20/2026 - 12:30

#24

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

Magnets

Perhaps not the way to go tbh.

As for ramps of different heights. I considered this a couple of times. But having this in more pieces actually opens up a lot more possibilities.

A ramp of 2? What if the other ramp is only 1, right next to it? That means that the smaller hexagon will have either a shorter ramp, or a ramp of 1 high. It also means that we cannot have bigger hexagons with shorter ramps either. So, I decided to turn 1 block into 2 or 3. And the options with it also go up.

Oh, not sure if others know what I am talking about. I showed the pictures in Discord. Either way, with options I mean that each "total" hexagon has multiple options per side now.

I could have a big hexagon as higher ground, and have the ramp on the lower hexagon.
I could have a small hexagon as higher ground, and have the ramp on the higher hexagon.

I even keep the option open to have 2 ramps between 2 equal hexagons. As a little natural barricade. Or a little natural dry creek. Things like that can increase map design options.
Of course, I could even add small rivers if I use 2 small hexagons with the 2 extended cliffs in between. In a sense, the 3D map design would almost perfectly follow my 2D map design now.

Any way, no magnets. Hoping to see some sort of connection in another way. Doesn't have to fit perfectly, just using gravity to stay in place.

Mon, 09/21/2026 - 14:36

#25

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

Thanks coworker who i shall not name

I really should draw the plans....
I cannot explain it with words.

He explained things to me with also answering questions that I had. Really helpfull.

The big hexagons will be connected on the sides. All the rest will get the "lego" treatment.
What I mean is that at certain parts on top, we will have things sticking out. And at the bottom, we will have holes.

I think that a + - treatment per corner, is an option, but was advised not to do so. Kiss, even for 3d printing.

I need an editor though. To play in.
Fusion, tinkercap or sketchup are the 3 programs named.

I suspect, that I have to buy a 3d printer myself. But if I want to push my hobby in a higher gear. I should do so.

Mon, 09/21/2026 - 18:54

#26

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

I don't want to interfere...

But I use "Blender" for 3D Modeling. It can export to various formats and I recently exported my "Dual Dice" Dice Model to Unity 3D (.fbx)

I'm just saying what I USE... Note to all the other Fusion / Tinkercad / Sketchup.

"Blender" is Open Source. If you like that, you can download and use it for FREE... There are no licenses, subscriptions, limitations, etc. etc.

That's all I'm going to add to this conversation.

I use it because someone told me it's used A LOT in terms of Product Support meaning that there is a fairly LARGE community / Group of Modelers using "Blender".

You can Google: "is the blender community larger than sketchup" for example.

All I'm saying it that I used it to model my dice for Manufacturing (.stl). And now I exported the model to filmbox (.fbx) for Unity 3D.

But like I said, YMMV depending on what you want to do and how easy it is to find YouTube videos helping you how to use a software like "Blender" (for example). I'm not telling you "Choose Blender" ... I'm just explaining that it is widely used for 3D Printing too...

Just purely informational. Another option.

Cheers.

Note #1: I just wanted to say it is LESS "precise" than the CAD/CAM Software out there. But you can specify units and grid subdivision and then you can specify dimensions manually (in textfields). And so forth... If you want a comparison of what is better ... Google for that.

It's not a UNIVERSAL solution... But like I said, I used it because someone told me A LOT of people use "Blender" so I gave it a try.

Note #2: In the past I used to use "3D Studio MAX" which was closer to a CAD/CAM software. "Blender" is different ... You apply "operators" so IF I want BOOLEAN Operator to cut part of a CUBE I can model the shape of the object I want to cut with and add the Operator.

So you can work your 3D Model... And then "Commit/APPLY" the operators and transform the shape. So I have a DICE without any Operators APPLIED and then I have a FINAL Version in which all Operators have been applied. Once you APPLY, you can't come back. It's set in stone.

It forces you to think about HOW you are going to model your SHAPES. Like I said it's different that CAD/CAM software even "3D SMAX". Worked for me so I am happy with using it...

Note #3: There is also a HISTORY like most pieces of software I was just wanting to explain when you use the Operators and Apply them... You can UNDO. I'm just saying if you SAVE once you've APPLIED the "Operators" you cannot go back.

That's why I create my model with all of the shapes that are to transformed with first and SAVE that file... So if there is anything I want to change in the base model, I have a file to work with.

It can UNDO... Just not across multiple files and File Loading (for example). I think if you Load a file, the HISTORY is reset to 0. Meaning the UNDO is RESET too...

Thu, 09/24/2026 - 14:51

#27

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

programs to use

For some reason....Sketchup doesn't seem to be reliable for me. It wants personal information. And then throws in a couple of things, saying like what I make is owned by them. So, F that.

Tinkercad didn't do that. However, I need time for exploration. If I don't get the time for exploration. I will put in a timeout.

Wed, 09/30/2026 - 15:18

#28

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

Learning Tinkercad

With babysteps.

Still, I get a lot of suggestions of people, saying I better not go into 3d printing for prototypes. Since the publish step would be using molds. And those cost a lot.

2nd, what I want is too expensive and too heavy. Even hollow hexagon tiles might be too much.

I also discovered a mistake in my thought proces. I even need little corners if I want to finish smootly.
Didn't look into what I need exactly, but lets say, I got literal holes in my plans.

So, I could go back to paper. Make a flat 3D terrain. And try to think of other ways to make ramps. In a sense, I don't have to make them diagonally. Only, visible as said, ramps.

An option is still, a height difference of 1, will be 2 mm with cardboard. Then the cliff is also 2 mm. But a ramp is only 1 mm. Thus showing the player, units can go up or down there. Corner pieces are then, not needed at all. And the ramps will always be halfway the 2 hexagon layers.

I think, I need to make a new topic. And see what can be done with cardboard.

Wed, 09/30/2026 - 16:52

#29

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Displayed Elevation changes

What if you make the "virtual ramps" a VALUE like "E2^" means an elevation change of 2 Levels. And you would place "ramps" on one (1) of the sides of a Hex... And specify "E?^" for elevation changes.

Therefore you can KNOW where the elevation changes (Plus or Minus). Something like this (maybe):

This would be a Water Tile with Rocks and an Elevation DROP to the connecting tile that is BELOW it...

Something like that. It's just an IDEA ... I thought about this after reading your last comment about "Tinkercad" and baby-steps and not to 3D Print, etc. etc.

So maybe the TILES can INDICATE "Elevation Changes" themselves. Maybe you can make it into a "better concept" like adapt this IDEA and formulate your own way of representing Elevation Changes???

Again this is just an IDEA. Do with it as you like! Maybe it gives you some kind of your own inspiration.

Cheers.

Wed, 09/30/2026 - 17:12

#30

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

I like the initial idea

It reminds me of a very old design. Where I put markers on the 2 edges between 2 hexagons. I could have the number on the middle. And an arrow pointing in one direction. I could then also have a double arrow, if it is a cliff and not a ramp/slope.

This way, I can keep the entire map "flat". But still make a puzzle out of it for those custom designs.

Or, keep the numbers within the main hexagons. And have an artistic way to show the difference between a ramp/slope and a cliff.

That is really the core of the problem. An artistic way, for a top down view. Not isometric, but flat. That we know the difference between a ramp/slope and a cliff.

If there is no proper solution. Then putting in a number, in the edge, is all that remains. Not a beautifull solution. But a mechanical correct, yes.

3D printing plans?! What should be my next step?

Field Commander

Field Commander Elite

Field Commander: The Wargame

Field Commander: Tactical Warfare

User login

Navigation

Oct 6 2026

Oct 4 2026

Oct 3 2026

Oct 1 2026

Sep 28 2026

Sep 19 2026

Sep 17 2026

Sep 13 2026

Sep 9 2026

Sep 5 2026

Aug 31 2026

Aug 26 2026

Aug 19 2026

Aug 14 2026

Aug 10 2026

Aug 3 2026

Aug 1 2026

Jul 23 2026

Jul 21 2026

Jul 5 2026

Jun 27 2026

	Cooperative Card Game - Thoughts? (2) by Noah McQ
	Commanders and aces (13) by Noah McQ