Skip to Content

Spaces - Hexagon or Square?

8 replies [Last post]
bottercot
bottercot's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/06/2018

So for a while I have been experimenting with mechanics for close quarters combat (with guns). One major problem I have been having, which is a very fundemental mechanic to my game, is the shape of the spaces.
There are two main types, and both have their advantages and disadvantages:
Squares: The OG type, I believe, originating as far as games like Stratego. The main advantage of squares is that they allow you to better handle and represent man-made structures on a battlefield. The drawback, though, is the nature of the corners of the square, and the havok they wreak on movement and range calculations, as well as Line of Sight.
Hexagons: The newer type, I think, used to great effectiveness in genres such as Commands and Colors and Combat Commander. The hexagon finds its strength in squares' weakness. Hexagons are great for calculating movement, range, Line of Sight, etc., and are also quite good for making terrain look natural. The drawback, though, is once again the inverse of squares. Hexagons are horrible when trying to make man-made structures or anything with a straight line. A simple box is difficult to represent!
In the setting of my game, I can neglect range, and I suppose Line of Sight's not actually a problem with either one, but I am still at a huge loss for which one I should use.
Do you of the forum have any suggestions? I legitimately don't have a clue!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I play with hexagons. It is a

I play with hexagons.
It is a choice that needs commitment.
So I understand if you go for squares.

Go octagon style. You keep the squares.
Simply accept that diagonal is 1.5 times horizontal/vertical.
But for more practical use:
- Horizontal/Vertical 2
- Diagonal 3

This website is holy for me:
http://www.quadibloc.com/other/bo02.htm

***

I tried out extremer things. There was a plan for dodecagon style. Hexagons with the same rules. It worked, but too complex for players. Don't go there.

Fri
Offline
Joined: 09/06/2017
hexagons for terrian squares for man made structures

I saw a game board once that used hexagons for terrains and square's for man made structures. I thought this was an interesting alternative that makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, both my memory and searching skills are failing me. I thought it was a post on this site that lead me to it, but I can't find it.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Axolote Hex?

Fri wrote:
I saw a game board once that used hexagons for terrains and square's for man made structures. I thought this was an interesting alternative that makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, both my memory and searching skills are failing me. I thought it was a post on this site that lead me to it, but I can't find it.

Axolote Hex?
Only one coming to my mind.

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Tannhauser Style

I've always been intrigued by the movement and mapping in Tannhauser. It's squad-level combat in close quarters, inside man-made structures. However, instead of any strict grid for placement and movement, they have circles the size of the miniature stands.

I have no idea if there's been any severe criticism of this style of map, but depending on the feel and function of what you're trying to do this may be a possible option. I know it worked great for close-quarters combat in my experience, so that's why it game to mind.

Here's a picture of what I mean (and someone added foamcore walls, to boot):
https://boardgamegeek.com/image/188469/tannhauser

bottercot
bottercot's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/06/2018
I typically prefer hexagons,

I typically prefer hexagons, but the main problem I found is trying to trace the walls of a building on a hexagon map. Making walls proved quite difficult, as opposed to squares which make for fairly easy traces. I don't like the mechanics of squares. I already know about the 2:3 moving diagonally ratio, but it then requires a Movement Points system which I don't necessarily want to have.
Another suggestion: could I do it without spaces at all? Spaceless movement is an area I have always been hesitant to go, since it then requires rulers and measuring tape and calculations and all sorts of crap.
I checked out the "Making Wargames more Complicated" site; it was a bit far beyond me. I will, though, look further into what this site offers.
I feel that if you put too much thought into movement, there comes a point where it starts to take away from the game, rather than add to it. If every movement is a complex calculation requiring references to multiple sheets, serious simplification has to happen.
In my game, I have already determined that the scale is small enough that bullet falloff and gun range don't matter; this does free me up to maybe complicate other aspects of the game.
I would completely do hexagons if it weren't for the fact that most human structures are right angles and squarish shapes.

bottercot
bottercot's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/06/2018
Brick Pattern?

I actually just remembered another style I had seen in board games. This is the "brick" style, with alternating rows of squares. This works pretty much the same way as hexagons in terms of movement, but could be better when trying to trace man made structures. The only game I can think of where I have seen this used is Battleball, although the game doesn't actually make use of the interesting board format in any significant way.
Could the brick style work? I haven't actually tried anything with it so I'm not sure how it works.

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Offset Grid

bottercot wrote:
I actually just remembered another style I had seen in board games. This is the "brick" style, with alternating rows of squares.
Could the brick style work? I haven't actually tried anything with it so I'm not sure how it works.
This is called an "offset grid," and us used primarily to replace hexagons for the exact reasons you describe. It's also much easier to prototype quickly, in the event you don't have hex grid paper/software available. Functionally, it's identical.

DonovanLoucks
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2008
Gunslinger (1982) doesn't

Gunslinger (1982) doesn't hesitate to alter hexes as needed to work in rectangular buildings.

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/104593/gunslinger

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut