Skip to Content

Terrain as simplified as possible

42 replies [Last post]
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

Clearly, cutting till I am happy.

I experimented a lot with this in the past.
But I rather have a 2 colour code to determine the properties of a terrain.

With some propulsions ignoring some by turning space points from any, into 3. And zeroing others of course. Like a ship would ignore the 0 space water offers. But all other colours are reduced to 0 space.

Light and dark variants have to go.
Grass with giant boulders on them would be comparible with a forest in terms of properties. Green and Brown!

In fact, if I where to use art for the lands now. I would go with only 2 colours (and their 50 shades of colour I guess)

Help me fill in the colour codes?

I have 10 colour codes:
Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Purple, White, Grey, Black, Brown

I have 16 combinations of what a colour could have:
0 to 3 Space points
0 to 3 Obstruction points

What I have so far is:

Space-Obstruction:
S-O

0-0: Blue; Water and rivers
0-1:
0-2:
0-3: Brown; Rocks, Boulders, Stone, Mountains
1-0: Yellow; Desert, everything related to soft ground
1-1: White; Everything related to snow
1-2: Or should I place white here?
1-3:
2-0: Green; Grass
2-1:
2-2:
2-3:
3-0: Grey; Roads and stuff
3-1:
3-2:
3-3: Black; Everything related to civilian structures

Remaining colours: Red (lava?), Orange (lava again?), Purple (wtf terrain?)

As you can see, every obstruction of 0 has something.

Maybe removing a colour to make sure. So 9 colours remain. And then have a 3 colour code. Where the space and obstruction are either 0, 1 or 2 each time.

terzamossa
Offline
Joined: 09/24/2020
Hi X3M

I must say I didn't understand everything you wrote :)
I still think I can chip in:
1) it seems to be good practice in graphic design to include some symbols to match colour coding (colour coding is great but lots of people are colourbling to different degrees, so adding something else is often a must for publication)
2) From personal experience, I had a wonderful icon system with about 10 icons in the whole game telling you EVERYTHING you needed to know in a card. In my opinion it was very easy and straightforward (to be fair I still think it is). Nonetheless this would take new players who are not used to it some 2 minutes looking at the card and making sure they understood everything correctly.
Eventually I had to remove most of the icons and just write lots of the effects in plain text (bold for recurrent terminology e.g. range, movement etc)
Long story short, if you have more than 2 terrain types, you might be better off writing clearly in the corner of each terrain tile/hex (or whatever you use) the properties.
It might make the game much more accessible to any new player and let them enjoy the strategy and mechanics more than if they have to keep looking at the refences to check how to move. (and you could still keep the colourcoding to make the experienced player check patterns at a first glance).
Hope this helps!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Basics

That would mean that I would simply have to add the numbers then.

A number for the space and a number for the obstruction.

I have not seen your name before. So I guess I explain a bit how the game works.

It is a wargame, where units can shoot several fields away. The map is a hexagon field.

Projectiles will have influence from obstruction. Every obstruction point is a 5/6th roll to see if the projectile will still hit.
Obstruction points can be added up for simplicity.
1= 5/6th
2= 4/6th
4= 3/6th
6= 2/6th
10= 1/6th

Even the 1/6th is still a valid roll in the game. But let's say, having 2 mountains of each 6 obstruction points reduce the accuracy by a lot.
Every 6 obstruction points, the range is also reduced by 1.

Then we have the space. Every unit has a size. And every hexagon has space of maximum 6. Infantry take 1 space, so 6 fit in that region. A tank might have a size of 3, so only 2 tanks fit in that region. Or 1 tank with 3 infantry.

Less space means that less units fit in a region.
A ship would ignore the 0 space of water, thus 6 space is the room for ships on water.
A swamp could be for example water with grass.

Hoover units can go over grass and water, so they can go through a swamp without much trouble, while land units and ships have less space.

If I go for the 3 colours, I could have a swamp contain water, grass and tree's ("rocks").

terzamossa
Offline
Joined: 09/24/2020
Cheers

Thanks for the explanation, that's much clearer now!
Nice meeting you, I am Antonio, have been around here just few weeks :)

First of all if the hexes are big enough to contain several units (and you implied they are) they probably can fit the 2 numbers for obstruction and space easily in a corner, so yes, I think that would be easier for new players than learning the colour code. It would also sort it for colour blind players (you can still colour code additionally though...or have a beautifully drawn map!)

on space: water space is 0 but ships ignore it, but they also ignore 3 on the ground...this is a lot of exceptions, the simpler way to put it is that ships would need a second space parameter so you'd need to have 3 numbers on each hex, ground space, obstruction, water space.
Nonetheless I think this is totally pointless, by the nature of it, people know instinctively that ships can't cross mountains and tanks can't swim.
One easy option could be having the separation between water and ground marked with a double line or some other feature. Then you would just say that nothing but hoovers can cross double lines (clearly ships starts in the sea and tanks on the ground). This removes the cool part of having an intermediate ground, I give you that. But your post is entitled "terrain as simplified as possible" and unfortunately sometimes some of the cool features are not simple :) I guess the fun in the game is exploding other players units, and if that's the case you don't want to overload the rules on the movement section.

On Obstruction: I am not familiar with the terminology you use (I saw another post of yours and I thought you might be a programmer, are you?) I thought it might be "roll a d6 and you only hit if the result is higher than the obstruction" but this does not make sense with the 4,6,10 you write below, so I know I didn't get it right...nonetheless, from the 2 mountains example, I understand that you sum the obstruction of each hex between you and the target, am I right on this? If I am, I'd suggest to remove this rule and only consider the target hex for the obstruction. This should speed up players, avoiding calculations for the overall obstruction, and there would be only one number they care about (not everybody loves math!). Also this avoids people throwing countless dice with most of them being misses and resulting in much longer gameplay with more diluted fun. Especially when there are many units in play!

What I wrote here is my best take at the problem not knowing much about the rest of your game and about the target audience, hope I am not too far off!
If you know who your target audience is and what kind of complexity they expect you can tune it to meet the expectations.
Hope some of this can be of any use!
Antonio

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
So, obstruction needs a rework then?

Yeah, I need to make it simpler.

Still, the group that plays. Doesn't mind adding up the obstruction points and then roll.

The advanced players even have a partly range reduction as well. Henceforth every 6 obstruction points reduce the range by 1.

Every obstruction point would equal a roll of 5/6th. Meaning, rolling a 5 or less would still remain a hit.

25/36 roughly equals 4/6th
625/1296 roughly equals 3/6th
etc. That is how I got to the translation.

***

To make obstruction go easier. I don't think players will mind adding up the points. But perhaps I should rethink the rolls then.

How about:
Every 6 obstruction. The range is reduced by 1. And the roll is reduced by 1. Meaning that 18 obstruction points would equal 3 range reduction and a reduction of 3 on the accuracy. So 3/6th for each projectile.

New:
Obstruction _0-_5, Range -0, Accuracy 6/6
Obstruction _6-11, Range -1, Accuracy 5/6
Obstruction 12-17, Range -2, Accuracy 4/6
Obstruction 18-23, Range -3, Accuracy 3/6
Obstruction 24-29, Range -4, Accuracy 2/6
Obstruction 30-35, Range -5, Accuracy 1/6
Obstruction 36+, Accuracy 0

If I look at a sniper. This guy has a range of 8.
For simplicity, they have 3 damage which is enough to kill one rifle infantry. A player can have 6 snipers.

Let's add mountains in the way of the projectiles. Where each mountain adds 6 obstruciton points and reduces the range by 1.

1 mountain ; range=7:
Old: Accuracy=(5/6)^6, or 2/6; 6 damage or 2 kills
New: Accuracy=5/6, 15 damage or 5 kills

2 mountains; range=6:
Old: Accuracy=(5/6)^12, or 1/6 * 4/6; 2 damage
New: Accuracy=4/6. 12 damage or 4 kills

3 mountains; range=5:
Old: Accuracy=(5/6)^18, or 1/6 * 2/6 * 4/6; 2/3th damage
New: Accuracy=4/6. 9 damage or 3 kills

The new method is simpler. But I don't like the fact that they can kill so many infantry after 3 mountains.

So obstruction needs to be different.
What if I go back to vision? simply have vision points instead of obstruction points?

***

Mountain offers 0 vision points.
6 is a maximum that a region can have.

Now I need to rework my 4 piercing weapons as well.
That on a side note.

Space-Vision:
S-V

0-3: Blue; Water and rivers
0-2:
0-1:
0-0: Brown; Rocks, Boulders, Stone, Mountains
1-3: Yellow; Desert, everything related to soft ground
1-2: White; Everything related to snow
1-1: Or should I place white here?
1-0:
2-3: Green; Grass
2-2:
2-1:
2-0:
3-3: Grey; Roads and stuff
3-2:
3-1:
3-0: Black; Everything related to civilian structures

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Symbols for colours

How about a symbol for colours?

Brown would be a rock
Green would be a grass
Both of them combined would be grass on a rock, which would look like a tree :D

Blue would be some waves

I have done this in the past. When I was creeping. But having simple symbols might do the trick.
What symbols does the player see?
And derive from that the type of terrain.

I think if I use fancy terrain instead. The symbols should be in the centre.

I ponder about the edges. Should I still have those edge regions as crunched hexagons? Or should I completely get rid of them for simplicity sakes?

terzamossa
Offline
Joined: 09/24/2020
now obstruction is clearer!

Thanks for the obstruction explanation, that is clear now!

Just a quick point, if your only problem with the new, simpler system is that it kills too much infantry, you could just increase the obstruction level of mountains (basically as you are not adding up obstruction, but only using the one of the final hex, you can increase that obstruction level) basically it's nothing wrong with the new system, it should just be balanced to meet the criteria.
Also, if you use something that just tells you the number to exceed when you roll, you avoid even minimal math work while not changing the mechanics at all (e.g. open fields have obstruction 1, it means that if you roll 2 or more you hit the target. Mountains have 4, and when you target a unit in a mountain, no matter how far, you roll a die and hit with 5 or 6)
Range could be completely separated from obstruction, just not to make it more complex. I know this is not realistic...but if it speeds up understanding the game the first time it might be worth. You can have an advanced rule-set too.

On the map side, having symbols with a rock/grass/water would be perfect in my opinion...and if you have unit-boards for each unit type you can specify special things there (e.g. ship: only moves on (water symbol). Tank: cannot move on (water symbol), half speed in (rock symbol)) so when new players check their unit board before moving, they can see how to do it and then check the same symbols on the map etc.
I would try to use minimal number of terrains type here too 3/4 max...if you have higher mountains you can still use the rock symbol and have them working in the same way in regard to movement, but give them a higher obstruction and lower space written on the hexes, so that those higher mountains are actually different from lower ones...but players do not need to learn another symbol.

On the hexes, in my game I am having a board drawn loosely but with a thin hex grid on top, and the symbols with the details are on one corner (they are stuff like, from which monster deck you draw if you have an encounter there etc).
If you have symbols in the centre you can avoid the hex grid altogether you should just check if it generates confusion (units on the edges etc) or not.

My advice is only food for thoughts anyway. Playtesting should be the only way to determine what works and what doesn't. Having one group that plays often is awesome to balance the deep strategic parts, I would suggest also introducing 1-2 new players every couple of weeks. This gives you an idea of what they pick up immediately and where they struggle. If players keep forgetting one rule, it's either unnecessary or not well explained or plainly too complex. Or maybe there are just too many rules overall and they're not well connected...
Ideally the game should be tuned so that the most distracted person can understand it with minimal effort. (I specified Ideally :) )

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Maybe I could shed some LIGHT (and DARK) ... ?

X3M wrote:

0-3: Blue; Water and rivers
0-2:
0-1:
0-0: Brown; Rocks, Boulders, Stone, Mountains
1-3: Yellow; Desert, everything related to soft ground
1-2: White; Everything related to snow
1-1: Or should I place white here?
1-0:
2-3: Green; Grass
2-2:
2-1:
2-0:
3-3: Grey; Roads and stuff
3-2:
3-1:
3-0: Black; Everything related to civilian structures

0-3: Dark Blue = Ocean
0-2: Mid Blue = Lake
0-1: Light Blue = River
0-0: Yellow = Shore, Beach, Sand

1-3: White = Mountain Peaks (Snow)
1-2: Grey = Mountains
1-1: Olive Green = Hills
1-0: Brown = Rocks

2-3: Dark Green = Evergreen
2-2: Mid Green = Forest
2-1: Light Green = Grasslands
2-0: Black = Buildings, Homes, Vehicles, Road, etc.

Does this work? Or do you absolutely NEED a 3-x category???

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
terzamossa wrote:Just a quick

terzamossa wrote:
Just a quick point, if your only problem with the new, simpler system is that it kills too much infantry, you could just increase the obstruction level of mountains (basically as you are not adding up obstruction, but only using the one of the final hex, you can increase that obstruction level) basically it's nothing wrong with the new system, it should just be balanced to meet the criteria.

I think I have an idea in this regard.
A region can have a total of 6 levels.
Level 0 adds 0
Level 1 adds 1
Level 2 adds 2
Level 3 adds 4
Level 4 adds 6
Level 5 adds 10
Level 6 adds infinite

This will however ask for math and stuff.
Isn't it better to simply have each region giving vision points instead?
So 0 vision requires the player to roll a 0 or less with a d6. In other words, also impossible.
Of course, range reduction could be scrapped if a hit chance is already reduced to 0.

terzamossa wrote:

On the map side, having symbols with a rock/grass/water would be perfect in my opinion...and if you have unit-boards for each unit type you can specify special things there (e.g. ship: only moves on (water symbol).
Yes, I like this a lot. The symbol would simply tell the player what terrain can be ignored in recards of insufficient space.

Air units get a cloud. Which would include ALL terrain types.

terzamossa wrote:
Tank: cannot move on (water symbol), half speed in (rock symbol)) so when new players check their unit board before moving, they can see how to do it and then check the same symbols on the map etc.

I will attempt to have the least symbols as possible. Meaning that 80% of the units have no symbol. And a basic understanding of the space should be present.
The least, the better. So perhaps I should limit in symbols as well.

terzamossa wrote:
I would try to use minimal number of terrains type here too 3/4 max...if you have higher mountains you can still use the rock symbol and have them working in the same way in regard to movement, but give them a higher obstruction and lower space written on the hexes, so that those higher mountains are actually different from lower ones...but players do not need to learn another symbol.

A symbol indicating terrain for space. And a number indicating vision.
A hill would have 1 rock, a forest as well.
A mountain would have 2 rock symbols.

So the terrain would have symbol/symbol/Vision#

terzamossa wrote:
On the hexes, in my game I am having a board drawn loosely but with a thin hex grid on top, and the symbols with the details are on one corner (they are stuff like, from which monster deck you draw if you have an encounter there etc).
If you have symbols in the centre you can avoid the hex grid altogether you should just check if it generates confusion (units on the edges etc) or not.

I am stil pondering if I should get rid of my ridges/small rivers. These places act like half regions. It worked pretty well tbh. But reduces practical space on the board. Might as well expand them to full hexagons as well. It was unique, but had impractical map designing. Meaning, one map segment would have a ridge that would not really fit in with another map segment.

terzamossa wrote:
My advice is only food for thoughts anyway. Playtesting should be the only way to determine what works and what doesn't. Having one group that plays often is awesome to balance the deep strategic parts, I would suggest also introducing 1-2 new players every couple of weeks.
I appreciate new input. And am happy that you are giving new input or your way to look at things.

A big OOFFF on that new player every 3 weeks. Because we hardly play the game. Once every 3 months tbh.

terzamossa wrote:
This gives you an idea of what they pick up immediately and where they struggle. If players keep forgetting one rule, it's either unnecessary or not well explained or plainly too complex. Or maybe there are just too many rules overall and they're not well connected...
So far, they only have been creeping...

terzamossa wrote:
Ideally the game should be tuned so that the most distracted person can understand it with minimal effort. (I specified Ideally :) )
We will tell the guy to pay more attention :)
TBH, so far we struggle to balance new parts.
But I am telling the group to stop this, because the game gets to much. And I want to start working on the public version too.
Which would benefit from this symbol idea.

My goal for the map would be that infantry would sneak through forests due to their size. While tanks have trouble and need a road.
Special units like snipers would be as big as tanks. Unless their size is reduced, thus their prize increased. The size of an unit would become very very important.
Hoovers would be the @$$holes of the game. Firing from land on ships with their missiles. Or firing from sea on tanks... again with their missiles. Like how envisioned the hoover MRLS from TS.

We copy a lot of games. Still funny to see a squad of knights running at riflemen. 1 Tank, and the rifleman run around the tank, not taking damage, hahaha.
But seriously, no tank, and the riflemen actually loose.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Vision or Obstruction

questccg wrote:

0-3: Dark Blue = Ocean
0-2: Mid Blue = Lake
0-1: Light Blue = River
0-0: Yellow = Shore, Beach, Sand

1-3: White = Mountain Peaks (Snow)
1-2: Grey = Mountains
1-1: Olive Green = Hills
1-0: Brown = Rocks

2-3: Dark Green = Evergreen
2-2: Mid Green = Forest
2-1: Light Green = Grasslands
2-0: Black = Buildings, Homes, Vehicles, Road, etc.

Does this work? Or do you absolutely NEED a 3-x category???


We are trying to get rid of the light and dark. Let alone, "mid". Grey would be the exception.

Water is water, although sea can be water with waves that have an height of 1 or even 2.
Having ships sail in one direction gives no resistance.
A 60 degree turn would require the ship to go up and down all the time. When going up. Less ships can go up. This fleet would be smaller.

Grey for mountains.... interesting and logical.

Either way, I don't think the vision or obstruction points were clear.
Having no vision on a beach is a bit....
Unless you read that list as obstruction.

Each region would be a combination of 2 terrain.
(Or 3, I am going to experiment with this one)

Having water and desert would result in a beach.
0 movement + 1 movement is 1 movement.

Having water and grass would result in a swamp.
0 movement + 2 movement is 2 movement.

Having water and snow would result in ice.
0 movement + 1 movement is 1 movement
3 vision + 2 vision is 5 vision or...
0 obstruction + 1 obstruction is 1 obstruction.

Ships would have 3 movement on any of the above.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
How it would look like as 3 parts would be combined

Grass and Rocks could also be a dense forest or light forest again.
Maybe a different symbol for brown I guess.

Either way, I have a memory of someone suggesting this some time ago (a year of 2?)

Space-Vision:
S-V

0-2: Blue; Water and rivers
0-1: Red; Lava and stuff
0-0: Brown; Rocks, Boulders, Stone, Mountains
1-2: Yellow; Desert, everything related to soft ground
1-1: White; Everything related to cold
1-0: Purple; A mist
2-2: Grey; Roads and stuff
2-1: Green; Grass and stuff
2-0: Black; Everything related to civilian structures

I am thinking about purple being mist and red being lava.
With this, the system is filled in.

A huge mountain would have 3 symbols.
A swamp can have a brown, green and blue symbol.
Or just 2 green with 1 blue or 1 green with 2 blue symbols.

Ah yes, this brings back memories. But I hope my experience will make it easier now.

Hmmmm, blue and red together would be weird...
Red and white together would be weird as well...
Any suggestions for red? There should be no space, and only 1 vision point.
Having a full red region would be 3 vision points.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
How many combinations are possible now?

A combination of 2:
There are at most 12 symbols (whishfull thinking)
Each region would have 2 symbols.
12 x 12 = 144 different terrain possible.

There are 9 symbols.
Each region would have 3 symbols.
9 x 9 x 9 = 729 different terrain possible.

Obviously I am not going to make it like this. But I think that each symbol could be a mini hexagon. Of which a nice mixture would be in the combination terrain. This pixelbased. And with symbols. I think it would be good.

The test region would be a forest. Where brown and green should show "tree's".

And white? Will be completely white, no symbol :)

terzamossa
Offline
Joined: 09/24/2020
Definition comment

Man, you do like math :)

Lots of the ideas in here are good and can work...you could just try them all out and see what works best!

I have a minor comment on some of the definitions you use e.g. vision. I think that they are a big counter intuitive, usually people tent to roll dice to match high numbers instead of trying to go below e.g. vision 0, makes sense that you cannot hit anything, but to me it seems natural that to match a 0 all rolls are valid (you always match it, as you try to go above, not below, which is the one you suggest). So using an obstruction level, and asking players to go above (vision 0, would be obstruction 7, and you can't match it with any roll) seems more natural to me. I don't know if in war games it usually is the other way round, you might want to check if your way of doing things is compatible with what players expect from other games (not to copy them, simply because it will shorten the time players learn your game as they can use analogies with others they already played)

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
terzamossa wrote:Man, you do

terzamossa wrote:
Man, you do like math :)
Yes! :)
terzamossa wrote:

Lots of the ideas in here are good and can work...you could just try them all out and see what works best!
One at a time, but times right now require me to have fun with friends and family ;)

terzamossa wrote:
I have a minor comment on some of the definitions you use e.g. vision. I think that they are a big counter intuitive, usually people tent to roll dice to match high numbers instead of trying to go below e.g. vision 0, makes sense that you cannot hit anything, but to me it seems natural that to match a 0 all rolls are valid (you always match it, as you try to go above, not below, which is the one you suggest). So using an obstruction level, and asking players to go above (vision 0, would be obstruction 7, and you can't match it with any roll) seems more natural to me. I don't know if in war games it usually is the other way round, you might want to check if your way of doing things is compatible with what players expect from other games (not to copy them, simply because it will shorten the time players learn your game as they can use analogies with others they already played)

Well, the obstruction is a, "roll less than" mechanic instead of "roll less or equal than" mechanic.

If players roll a die, and have to roll less or equal to the vision number. This 0 doesn't need to be rolled. But does logically explain why you don't need to roll in the first place.

I have another counter intuitive aspect to my game. Which is highly accepted by now.

The armor...

A weapon does equal or less damage than the armor a target has.
This is due to that the hobby variant works with health.
The public variant avoids this.

Infantry has 1 armor.
Troopers have 4 armor.
A power of 2 to each tier if you will.
The costs? Equals the tier.
It gives a neat RPS effect.

If a weapon has 25 damage, it will do 25 damage against armor 25 or more. But otherwise equal to the armor of the lower tiers.
So against an infantry unit, only 1 damage.

In the public variant, there is no health, only armor. So a big cannon that hits will instantly kill an infantry unit. This is effectively reducing the weapon effectivness either way.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Obviously

I am not going to create 729 terrains.
Instead, I will have a texture with 3 colours. Which will be replaced by any of the terrain types.

How to do a prototype?
Still pondering about this one.

I should find an easy way to give each hexagon 1 to 3 colours.
For consistency, the colours need to be in order as well. I think of going light to dark.

2 colours is easy to do.

3 colours cross each other. And I dont want to make it spiraling. Perhaps having 2 colours for 1/3th of an hexagon segment.

This is only for quick prototyping!

No fancy stuff.

terzamossa
Offline
Joined: 09/24/2020
What I mean is that the "roll

What I mean is that the "roll less than" is a mechanic which is not common, usually the higher you roll the better it is, and this is what most players expect. About rolling "less than", or "less or equal to", I guess it is equivalent in terms of simplicity, but possibly use always the same for any roll in the game, so players don't have to remember when any of the 2 is valid.

On the armour...if I understood correctly, what you say seems common sense to me...if a tank has 4 armour, I can shoot with 40 or 400, the result is simply that it dies, it's up to me to optimise my moves so that I use powerful weapons only against big stuff.
(but maybe big cannons hit anybody in the hex, while rifles hit single targets in the hex?)
How do you keep track of the life of each unit though? Wouldn't you prefer instant death only? (and armour could work like the minimum damage you need to do to destroy something...e.g. if my armour is 4 and you shoot me with 2 damage, nothing happens, so you better aim somewhere else, your snipers will never explode my tank!)
I am saying this only as I imagine your game has lots of units, it must be a mess taking care of all the hp of all units!

You were asking for how to do the board, you can generate hex grids here https://incompetech.com/graphpaper/hexagonal/
I must say I used mostly powerpoint and paint for my map (for cards too) and this is the result: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m-bWIneSeE4H7L9Zqkt4RVe-RA932Wea/view?u...
In my opinion it works fine (clearly not for the finished product)...also googled and modified images (the remove background feature of powerpoint is one of my best friends now)...of course this works just for playtesting, at the moment an illustrator is working on the drawing for the map and then an architect friend will lay down the hex grid with name and symbols on top. But I have been playtesting for ages using this kind of home made stuff.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
terzamossa wrote:On the

terzamossa wrote:
On the armour...if I understood correctly, what you say seems common sense to me...if a tank has 4 armour, I can shoot with 40 or 400, the result is simply that it dies, it's up to me to optimise my moves so that I use powerful weapons only against big stuff.

Indeed. That is how it is intended to work.

terzamossa wrote:
(but maybe big cannons hit anybody in the hex, while rifles hit single targets in the hex?)

Some cannons do hit multiple targets. They have explosive shells for this.

terzamossa wrote:
How do you keep track of the life of each unit though? Wouldn't you prefer instant death only? (and armour could work like the minimum damage you need to do to destroy something...e.g. if my armour is 4 and you shoot me with 2 damage, nothing happens, so you better aim somewhere else, your snipers will never explode my tank!)
In the public variant, tracking 1, 2 or 3 damage is easy. The hobby variant, we use little whiteboard pieces to write on. A simple number is written and added to that particular unit that takes the damage. I need to add, that there is only 1 injured/damaged unit in every combat resolution. The rest lives or dies completely.

Example: there are 5 soldiers with each 5 health. The enemy does 12 times 1 damage. 2 Soldiers die, and 1 soldier takes 2 remaining damage. The next round, this soldier is either healed, has retreated or has taken cover for the next combat resolution.

terzamossa wrote:

I am saying this only as I imagine your game has lots of units, it must be a mess taking care of all the hp of all units!
Sometimes it does have a lot of pieces. But for the public variant, I will allow only 1 to 8 pieces per hexagon. And each unit variant is very limited in how many pieces a player may use. Only the bigger pieces of which a player has 1 or 2 or maybe 3, will have a bit of health tracking.

terzamossa wrote:
You were asking for how to do the board, you can generate hex grids here https://incompetech.com/graphpaper/hexagonal/
I must say I used mostly powerpoint and paint for my map (for cards too) and this is the result: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m-bWIneSeE4H7L9Zqkt4RVe-RA932Wea/view?u...
In my opinion it works fine (clearly not for the finished product)...also googled and modified images (the remove background feature of powerpoint is one of my best friends now)...of course this works just for playtesting, at the moment an illustrator is working on the drawing for the map and then an architect friend will lay down the hex grid with name and symbols on top. But I have been playtesting for ages using this kind of home made stuff.

I will look into it next year ;)

Everyone, have a happy New Year!!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
A question from my group

Why not go back to having the hexagons with roads and stuff. Yet without the ridges?

My answer to that would be that having roads as roads, would also demand having them go in a direction...

If there is a road on a hexagon. It should be entirely the road. Right?
Maybe some sort of miniture hexagon resembling hexagon pavern of a sidewalk.

Then again, having each region consist of smaller hexagons could once again ask me to go into directions with colours. But I am not a fan of that.

On a side note. I think that white, grey and black don't need symbols at all. So only the 6 other ones remain.

AdamRobinGames-ARG
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2015
I have been trying to catch up

I may be off base with what you are trying to do, but to your original question, for the color coding, could something like this work:
Color (symbol) - Description
Red (Flame) - Volcano
Orange (Sand?) - Desert
Yellow (Wheat) - Fields
Green (Grass) - Plains
Blue (Water Droplet)- Ocean
Purple (Crooked Tree) - Bog
Brown (Rocks) - Hills
White (Snowflake) - Snow
Grey (Mountain Peak) - Mountain
Black (City Scape) - Civilization improvements/Development
Red/Orange - ?
Red/Yellow - Monolith
Red/Green - Lava fields
Red/Blue - Volcanic Island
Red/Purple - ?
Red/Brown - Caldera
Red/White - Dormant Volcano?
Red/Grey - Super Volcano
Red/Black - ?
Orange/Yellow - Cactus fields
Orange/Green - Salt Flats
Orange/Blue - Beach
Orange/Purple - Oasis
Orange/Brown - Dunes?
Orange/White - Tundra?
Orange/Grey - ?
Orange/Black - Nomads
Yellow/Green - Pasture
Yellow/Blue - Creek
Yellow/Purple - Marsh
Yellow/Brown - Terrace
Yellow/White - ?
Yellow/Grey - ?
Yellow/Black - Village
Green/Blue - Stream
Green/Purple - Wetlands
Green/Brown - Valley
Green/White - Ice Flats
Green/Grey - Plateau
Green/Black - Inland Town
Blue/Purple - Swamp
Blue/Brown - River
Blue/White - Iceburg
Blue/Gray - Fjord
Blue/Black - Coastal town
Purple/Brown - ?
Purple/White - ?
Purple/Grey - Caves
Purple/Black - Boonies
Brown/White - ?
Brown/Grey - Tundra?
Brown/Black - Suburbs
White/Grey - Ice Caves
White/Black - ?
Gray/Black - Cities

Basically, anything plus Black refers to population density/buildings/development rather than terrain. Then all the other color combos deal with actual terrain.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Without the names

Well, without the names for all those mixed terrains.

I think it is better to focus on the pure colours. If those are correct. The rest will follow. Right?

I see grey for mountains again.
But to make each type of terrain being practical. The whole system needs to be filled.

I don't know how to do it with grey being mountain just yet. At least, not completely. Which leaves me with the following quesiton. How would you fill in the following list? @AdamRobinGames-ARG

Space-Vision:
S-V

0-2: Blue; Water
0-1:
0-0:
1-2:
1-1:
1-0:
2-2:
2-1:
2-0:

Keep in mind. If a region is entirely one type. The space and vision are added up. For water, the space remains 0. But the vision can go up to 6. Meaning that a player needs to roll that number or less to get the projectiles through.

***

I remember why I started using obstruction points instead of vision. And why I had this range reduction for every 6 obstruction points. It was in order to have a simpler roll for players. Because having a range of 15 with 15 different regions. Means 15 rolls...

Yet with obstruction points. You add up the obstruction points. Then have 1 or a few rolls instead.

Now comes a question that is very hard for me. But very easy for you guys.

Would it be an idea to have a list of obstruction points. And what a player can roll instead?

Meaning, the player adds up the obstruction points to see in which category the accuracy falls.
Then there is a limited ammount of options.
5/6th, 4/6th, 3/6th, 2/6th, 1/6th and 0.

Obstruction range = Accuracy
_0 to _0 = 6
_1 to _1 = 5
_2 to _3 = 4
_4 to _5 = 3
_6 to _9 = 2
10 to 13 = 1
14 and more = 0

Only a few players realized that every range can give up to a maximum of 6 obstruction points. Meaning that units with a range of 1, will have a minimum accuracy of 2. Units with a range of 2, will have a minimum accuracy of 1. So logically speaking, range 3 should have a minimum accuracy of 0. This is somewhere between 13 and 18 obstruction points.
I decided on 14. Because you see +1+1+2+2+4 as additions. So a +4 fits in neatly.

0 accuracy can be reached at a range of 3.

Then again, perhaps this should be linear or another system. That makes more sense to the players.

Obstruction range = Accuracy
_0 to _0 = 6
_1 to _1 = 5
_2 to _4 = 4
_5 to _9 = 3
10 to 16 = 2
17 to 25 = 1
26 and more = 0

0 accuracy can be reached at a range of 5.

You know, I still think the following list might be more useful:
Level 0 adds 0
Level 1 adds 1
Level 2 adds 2
Level 3 adds 4
Level 4 adds 6
Level 5 adds 10
Level 6 adds infinite

1 mountain, and the vision drops to 0.

AdamRobinGames-ARG
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2015
I vote for the Fibonacci Sequence

It's as easy as 1, 1, 2, 3. Puns aside, I like the 3 color system. I think:
S-V: Color; Represents (Symbol)
0-2: Blue; Water (Drop)
0-1: Brown; Rough, Rocky or Hilly Terrain (Boulders)
0-0: Grey; Mountain (Mountain Peak)
1-2: Orange; Desert (Sand)
1-1: Purple; Bog, Wetlands (Cattail {the plant, not the animal})
1-0: Green; Forest, Woods (Tree)
2-2: Yellow; Grasslands, Plains, Fields (Wheat or Grass)
2-1: Violet; Meadow, Brush (Flower)
2-0: Black; Civilian Structures (Building)

Then White can be a Vision modifier that represents fog or snow and can be a halo around any symbol. Flip a coin for 0/-1 vision for the tile.

Same for Red, Halo to represent geological event that has a chance to reduce Space (such as volcano or earthquake). Probably not a coin toss but something less frequent, and probably reduces the entire tile space to 0.

(Since you are trying to simplify, ignore the halo ideas.) But by keeping red out of the color/symbol mix, you're reducing one of the two more common color blind issues (Red-Green color blind).

Maybe helpful???

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Not helping the color blind

Only the dice should be color blind friendly.

I got the symbols for determining the type of terrain.
If done right, it would show some sort of texture.

I like the idea of terrain effects with a die.
But it doesn't fit with this game.
Think Warcraft meets Starcraft meets C&C meets KKnD meets Warzone2100 meets...etc. That kind of setting.

The public version would be simpler. But at least the terrain can be the same if I do this right.

***

I see that you placed rocky terrain and mountains in the same category.
We originally always had rocky and mountain in the same category. But the rocky terrain had some space for units. And was a result of mountain mixed with clear terrain.

What would you do for roads?
Because I can't move that well through grassfields.

I see you let Forest make a return.

Maybe I should keep using dark and light green.

Seeing you suggest yellow for grass and orange for desert. I wonder how others think about this.
Google thinks desert should be somewhat orange as well. Hmmm.

***

I am going to see what I can get with mountains being grey and roads/super flat included.
I see I made a mistake with the grass in one of the previous posts in regards to space and vision. This should have been the other way around...and ehm, that would be the same spot as the desert.
oofff...
Then perhaps the tic-tac-toe approach might be of use?
And simply have a maximum of 2 colours again. (Which makes it easier)

Original plus some colour adjustments wrote:

Space-Vision:
S-V

Max vision terrain:
0-3: Blue; Water
1-3: Orange; Desert (colour adjustment, was yellow)
2-3: Yellow; Grass (colour adjustment, was light green)
3-3: Black; Roads

Equal space and vision:
2-2: White; Snow/Fog
1-1: Green; Tree's (colour adjustment, was dark green)
0-0: Grey; Rocky/Mountain (colour adjustment, was brown)

Exception:
3-0: Grey; Urban/Skyscrapers

What is missing right now are extensions to the Exceptions. Which would become the maximum space terrain. I have been looking through your list for inspiration.
3-1: Red/Brown; Urban/Red brick houses with a brown roof?
3-2: Purple or a colour used already??; ???

With that, the triangle would be completed. Perhaps some "textures" can have the same colour?

Roads and Urban are such examples. But if mountains has grey as well. What kind of "texture" would it get? An asterix perhaps?

Also, maybe I could use light and dark green anyways. Or then again, have tree's showing their trunks anyway.

***

How I picture some "textures".
Seeing as how hexagons are filled in (the little ones)
I could simply divide a hexagon in 3 for the urban. This would represent a cube or house. Maybe even put in windows. :) However, maps should be able to be tilted. So I am not sure. Maybe have the roof and sides contain the same "glass" panes. But then black or grey wouldn't be that much of an option.
Roads remain empty, but could have a texture as if they are pavement of some sort. A hexagon slab perhaps...
Forest can get a tree texture.

Also, there is a way to have a big hexagon with little hexagons. Without cutting the little ones in half. And this way, I can have multiple maps joining together with more ease.
Previously this was harder due to the ridges.
either way, if I want a building to be seen. It can't be black...

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
To keep a post short

And my troubles less.

I decided to make some scetches of how terrain would look like at miniature 8-bit hexagons.

What kind of terrain can be created by simple symbols that fill in an entire hexagon. Then these little f'ers can be added to the big one.

Depending on the number of little ones. I can decide how many combinations of vision and space is possible.

AdamRobinGames-ARG
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2015
Two Color Symbols

Instead of doing shades of a color, have you considered two color symbols? Think of the Symbols for different Civilizations in the Civ games. There are several that use the same color.

Then you could have 2 branches. One for natural terrain, one for development. Each tile could have one of each. Additionally, the branches don't need to be equal. Terrain could be 0-0 to 4-4 and Development 0-0 to 2-2.

Just thinking out loud.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
AdamRobinGames-ARG

AdamRobinGames-ARG wrote:
Instead of doing shades of a color, have you considered two color symbols? Think of the Symbols for different Civilizations in the Civ games. There are several that use the same color.

Then you could have 2 branches. One for natural terrain, one for development. Each tile could have one of each. Additionally, the branches don't need to be equal. Terrain could be 0-0 to 4-4 and Development 0-0 to 2-2.

Just thinking out loud.


Every variable increases the combinations exponentially.
While that is not the issue here.

Having more properties going with it is.

I have several properties. And always try to have it a number as much as possible.
Terrein height is one of those properties that is treated separately. But I am thinking about using a physical 3D elevation instead.

That would remove the usage for the height number.

Other than that, I am using only vision and space. Which should be done by the symbol that each texture has.

The textures that I had in mind. I have yet to find time to start working on them.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Triangles...?

I could type away my issue's here. And how I would come to the usage of triangle's...
My buddies want to keep ridges too... But I will put that last because it will always cause issue's as well. And a simple "no, because" has more valid these days.

But let me ask a question first.

How to connect hexagon maps in a rotation symmetrical way?
I don't want hexagons to be cut in half.
I am looking for a way where the maps will stick together too.
I remember something with a star or asterix shape???

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
A hexagon is 6 triangles

Should I go with this ancient approach?

Where one region simply has 6 spots for a terrain type?

Each triangle could be adding a point or not to:
- Space; but this is going to be depending on propulsion.
- Vision
- Obstruction (if this works better than vision)

All 6 triangles will work together as one.
The half hexagons will work with 3 triangles. Which logically gives less space. But also less vision as if the edge of the map is maximum obstruction. Or the edge of the map is considered to be maximum vision instead.

Of course, corner regions are possible too.

No more ridges.

While, mechanics will work great.
The graphics will look very crappy...

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Looking for...

Existing games that use a triangular grid.
But also have terrain drawn on them.

Where the heck are they?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
More cutting

I guess I am prepared to cut even more.

It has come to a point where I want only terrain that offers space and terrain that doesn't.

Ground (i guess grass) and water.

And objects that reduce the vision and space.
Tree's...

I also have altitude, and a maximum of rocks always was the same as altitude in that regard.

What would get removed are roads, urban, rocks, snow and desert.

Should I do this?

Or find a way to have more things to add to the board??

Another idea is to have a select few of terrains with a select few objects.

Grass, desert, water and stone would be the terrain.
Tree's, rocks, houses and roads would be the objects.

The roads could act as bridges...
Water roads as well tbh...

Snow would still be left out for now. But could be added later on as terrain AND object.

Maybe I should have almost every terrain being a main hexagon and an addible object???

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
The magic word is barren??

I have been looking at other board games for inspiration.

Wheter 3d printed or cardboard.

I can't seem to be able to make up my mind. Where to start with a basis???

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Take a look at this Roll20 Asset

If terrains are your thing, you can take a look at this Roll20 Asset. Just of course to inspire you ... Because oddly enough ... You can use it for personal use ... But not distribution. But from the link, you can always contact the designer and see if you can negotiate a deal for commercial purposes (maybe!?)

https://marketplace.roll20.net/browse/set/661/endless-terrains-hex-grid

That page gives you a sample of each tile, transition for Radius 1 (R1), R2 and R4.

Maybe this can also help you with your own CLASSIFICATION (types of terrain)... Anyways just figured that I'd share with you this collection of tiles that may (or may not) help you out... Cheers!

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut