Skip to Content

Design flaw? Borders are illogical?

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

Simple game facts in my wargame:

Submarine torpedo's can't go through land.

Borders (a shell of 6 borders around each hexagon) are ignored when it comes to projectile movement. It doesn't matter if the terrain is flat, or has difference in height.

Unit movement is based on the hexagons AND borders.
If an unit has to move upwards or down, the border shows if it is possible or not.
The borders where added to the game for this particular reason.
And logically, for flat terrain, they kept their purpose.

***

The problem:
The submarine torpedo should actually be stopped if there is a wall of land on the border, right in between 2 sea masses?
If so, should not all projectiles get influence from these borders?

What I don't have, is the 58% chance that a projectile can go through a rock formation.
If I do this for flat terrain, it makes sense.
But when shooting downwards or upwards. Shouldn't these borders be ignored in that particular moment?

***

How to put this in decent rules?

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Logic & Consistency

Are torpedoes meant only for water travel? Are the torpedoes in your game able to fly through the air? Are torpedoes launched only from underwater structures or vehicles? Is there any situation when a land vehicle or structure launches a torpedo?

I ask this because it's not clear from what you mention here. When I think of torpedoes, I think of waterborne projectiles that stay underwater, and/or hit only waterborne targets. I don't imagine torpedoes go over land in any case, exploding before they run aground or hit any targets that aren't bordered by water.

So, in the world of your game, do torpedoes fly? If not then they should not be able to make their way over a land border. If they do, then I think a single hex width (or edge) would be acceptable.

If you need to help a player understand this land-bridging ability, maybe call them something like "sea rockets" instead of "torpedoes."

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Thank you for responding

Of course, I want to keep things as logical as possible.

This would mean that torpedo's would be stopped by landmass.
(I do have all the variations that you mentioned, but for the sake of solution finding. Let us consider only the normal torpedo that can only go through water)

This has not consequences for the units and structures.
But for the rules that the maps have.

I used to have obstruction on the hexagons for movement and projectiles.
I also used to have obstruction on the borders for movement only.

It looks like, I simply need to add obstruction for projectiles as well.
But there are exceptions to this...

***

I have to think of some rules, regarding the borders that separate different altitude of hexagons.

Borders are ignored when shooting upwards or down???

A rocky border will reduce projectiles that will hit.
A rocky border that acts as cliff between low and high ground, will not??

The obstruction points are 3 for a rocky border.
The obstruction points are 1 for each difference in height.

It is kinda like having to shoot through a wall.
Or something is standing on top of that wall looking at you. I mean, the guy behind the wall is better protected in real life, right?
And the guys that shoot from that wall, would have even less trouble.

What do you think? How should the rules be, regarding this?
Because, it was this debate, that never allowed borders act as walls in the first place.

apeloverage
Offline
Joined: 08/01/2008
X3M wrote:Borders (a shell of

X3M wrote:
Borders (a shell of 6 borders around each hexagon) are ignored when it comes to projectile movement. It doesn't matter if the terrain is flat, or has difference in height.

It's not clear what this means.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
This image kinda shows it all

@apeloverage

http://i.imgur.com/yxP8bTj.png

Between each hexagon is a border.
The hexagon on the left has its 6 borders.
The hexagon on the right shows the other half of the 6 borders. Shared with the 6 adjacent hexagons.

The borders in my game kinda separate the hexagons.
They are relatively small, just like in the picture.

***

The main question that I have at the moments is. Should I stick with this. And simply turn the borders into "wall"/"canal" like regions?

Or should I discard them. And use half of the hexagons on the map as borders instead? In other words, these hexagons will not contain units, nor structures.
The board would be needing to be twice as big, for the same game.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
This one is super, super old (august 2015)

https://forum.dune2k.com/uploads/monthly_2015_08/post-2682-0-68209400-14...

But it actually shows what I am heading to again.
Don't comment on the "graphics" please. I got other stuff now. But this picture clearly shows the intention without any static.

The little dots in the middle of hexagons are gone these days.
The red numbers for height are still there.
The borders are clearly shown. In modern versions, they are "random", not "strict".
And a new version would certainly be improvement.

Either way. It shows that the borders are very flat hexagons.

So, should I keep this concept, or not?

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Better Understanding

I think I understand better. What it seems to be is that you're asking about two different topics: Elevation and Obstacles. Here are a couple suggestions inspired from my days of playing HeroScape. For as simple as that game was/is, the ruleset covers a lot of worthwhile concepts.

Regarding Elevation: This would be indicated by your "red numbers" at the center of the hexes. If there's a significant difference in elevation from where an attack is made and its target (in HeroScape a difference of two "levels" was significant enough for this), then there is a modifier to hit. If attacking from higher elevation to lower, add a bonus to hit the target. If attacking from lower elevation to higher, subtract a penalty to hit.

Also regarding Elevation: A unit cannot be attacked if stationed on the opposite side of terrain that is high enough to remove it from line-of-sight of the attacker. The exceptions to this apply only to weapons that have an arced trajectory and effective range, such as thrown grenades, mortars, some launched rockets, howitzers, etc.

Regarding Obstacles: These would be referring to the "borders" of the hexes you described above. I like this idea a lot, and I think it adds just enough tactical and strategic variety to make it worth the complexity. Furthermore, I'm reminded of another streamlined, old-skool combat game: Battle Masters, that used these effectively in an otherwise basic game.

An Obstacle can have a handful of different qualities:

  • Permanent or Temporary. Will it last forever?
  • Mobile or Stationary. Will it stay put?
  • Destructible or Indestructible. Can it be destroyed? Note that this is considered different from being Permanent or Temporary.
  • Blocking or Traversible. Whether or not units somehow move through them while they exist.
  • Permeable or Insubstantial. Whether or not attacks penetrate them, with or without causing damage to the Obstacle itself.
  • One-sided or Universal. Whether or not a unit needs to be on a specific side of the Obstacle to receive benefits or penalties.

If you want to factor these qualities into your rules, simply add or subtract modifiers to attack and defense as required. Battle Masters, for example, had hedgerows, which prevented movement between hexes at that border (so were Blocking), but attacks could pass through them (so were Permeable). They were also considered Permanent and Indestructible.

Another obstacle, a Wooden Palisade, could be added to the map, Allowing a bonus to Attack from one side and a penalty to Attack from the other (so were considered One-sided and Permeable), as well as being Permanent, Destructible (in our house rules, the Empire's Cannon unit was the only unit able to destroy these), and Blocking.

These are just two examples, but I imagine you can think of more on your own. I'm sure the potential complexity doesn't intimidate you, based on the other concepts you've discussed here. So I hope this has been useful. :)

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
This is good

let-off studios wrote:
I think I understand better. What it seems to be is that you're asking about two different topics: Elevation and Obstacles. Here are a couple suggestions inspired from my days of playing HeroScape. For as simple as that game was/is, the ruleset covers a lot of worthwhile concepts.
I like HeroScape. That game already inspired me a lot.

let-off studios wrote:
Regarding Elevation: This would be indicated by your "red numbers" at the center of the hexes. If there's a significant difference in elevation from where an attack is made and its target (in HeroScape a difference of two "levels" was significant enough for this), then there is a modifier to hit. If attacking from higher elevation to lower, add a bonus to hit the target. If attacking from lower elevation to higher, subtract a penalty to hit.

Yes, I got an accuracy roll of 5/6th. Each elevation is one more roll of these. But range is also reduced by 1 with every elevation.

let-off studios wrote:
Also regarding Elevation: A unit cannot be attacked if stationed on the opposite side of terrain that is high enough to remove it from line-of-sight of the attacker. The exceptions to this apply only to weapons that have an arced trajectory and effective range, such as thrown grenades, mortars, some launched rockets, howitzers, etc.
I got that as well. Arc types for the obstruction. Ballistic or X-ray types of several levels for the real elevation.

let-off studios wrote:
Regarding Obstacles: These would be referring to the "borders" of the hexes you described above. I like this idea a lot, and I think it adds just enough tactical and strategic variety to make it worth the complexity. Furthermore, I'm reminded of another streamlined, old-skool combat game: Battle Masters, that used these effectively in an otherwise basic game.
I am glad that you like the idea. While at first, they where used for only the movement. Now, adding them for obstruction makes it much more fun.
I will look into Battle Masters

let-off studios wrote:
An Obstacle can have a handful of different qualities:

  • Permanent or Temporary. Will it last forever?
  • Mobile or Stationary. Will it stay put?
  • Destructible or Indestructible. Can it be destroyed? Note that this is considered different from being Permanent or Temporary.
  • Blocking or Traversible. Whether or not units somehow move through them while they exist.
  • Permeable or Insubstantial. Whether or not attacks penetrate them, with or without causing damage to the Obstacle itself.
  • One-sided or Universal. Whether or not a unit needs to be on a specific side of the Obstacle to receive benefits or penalties.

To put my current game in simple answers...

The map first. All map obstacles are:
- permanent
- stationary
- indestructible
- traversable: for the right types of propulsions; hoover on water, crawler on rocks etc.
- permeable
- universal

We used to have obstacles that where:
- permanent (same)
- stationary (same)
- destructible: chopping wood, blowing up rocks
- traversable: for the right types of propulsions (same)
- insubstantial
- universal (same)

But we removed these from the game because borders where introduced. I don't see any way to re-introduce them without removing the borders. Unless they are not used on the borders, only on the hexagons. Which brings me to the next type.

The pieces (units and structures)
- permanent AND temporary (buying projectiles, Starcraft Reaver style)
- stationary (structures) AND mobile (units)
- destructible
- traversable: for the right types of propulsions; hoover on water, crawler on rocks etc. MULTIPLIED with the remaining space caused by these pieces.
For obvious reasons, you can fly over ground forces, but also you can walk over mines in my game :)
- permeable: if an Event Card allows a player to attack another line of defence, the front line is ignored.
- universal regarding movement. one sided regarding projectiles: your own units can't stop your own projectiles. Plus, this is only for that particular region. When an enemy shoots into a region. There is a front-line, middle and back. The front-line gets most of the damage first. Thus protecting the units behind.

let-off studios wrote:
These are just two examples, but I imagine you can think of more on your own. I'm sure the potential complexity doesn't intimidate you, based on the other concepts you've discussed here. So I hope this has been useful. :)

Not at all, thank you!
I needed something like this.
If you see anything that could be done better. Let me know.

apeloverage
Offline
Joined: 08/01/2008
X3M

X3M wrote:
@apeloverage

http://i.imgur.com/yxP8bTj.png

Between each hexagon is a border.
The hexagon on the left has its 6 borders.
The hexagon on the right shows the other half of the 6 borders. Shared with the 6 adjacent hexagons.

So it sounds like you have regions on the board that are relevant to the game, but aren't marked with any lines?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
How time flies

apeloverage wrote:
X3M wrote:
@apeloverage

http://i.imgur.com/yxP8bTj.png

Between each hexagon is a border.
The hexagon on the left has its 6 borders.
The hexagon on the right shows the other half of the 6 borders. Shared with the 6 adjacent hexagons.

So it sounds like you have regions on the board that are relevant to the game, but aren't marked with any lines?


Actually, I do have this:
https://forum.dune2k.com/uploads/monthly_2015_08/post-2682-0-68209400-14...

This prototype shows exactly how it was 5 years ago. In a very "strict" way. We had different rules, back then. Even for the projectiles on the main hexagons.

Seeing as how some rules already changed. I could remove the centre of the borders.
And move it inwards to the hexagons that are actually of use.

In 3D terms, it would look like this:
http://abload.de/img/bt235jkt.jpg
and
http://abload.de/img/bt3dlkqy.jpg

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Borders, do they make sense now?

Kinda work the same are regions now.
Except, they offer no space, only movement.
And they only offer obstruction points in flat circumstances.

Submarine and subterrain weapons are covered now.

when shooting upwards, a player can only shoot the edge, unless there are ballistics going on. The border is ignored. Shooting upwards causes a different penalty.
When shooting downwards, the border is again ignored.

This will cause ridges to act as movement stoppers only. While flat borders offer obstruction.

Shooting from 1 hexagon to another, with a 3 point obstruction. Will have an accuracy of 58% and a range reduction of 0.5. All hexagons behind this hexagon will all suffer from the same 58% accuracy.
Movement is also not possible.

***

When the other hexagon is higher. Then this will be the only hexagon that can be shot. Other hexagons behind cannot be seen at all, this depends on how far the attacker stands away from the border. (Unless ballistics). If it has one more hexagon in between, then it can shoot +1 hexagon behind the border.

If the border is a 3 point obstruction, most vehicles can't move through anyway. The obstruction points don't count towards accuracy. But the height does.
A difference of 1 height will actually reduce the range by 1 (also for ballistics). And still add 1 obstruction point.

apeloverage
Offline
Joined: 08/01/2008
I can't follow how the spaces

I can't follow how the spaces on the board work from this description.

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Hexagon Edges = Borders

apeloverage wrote:
I can't follow how the spaces on the board work from this description.
Let me see if I can help, because I think I'm following pretty well. I'm still referring to this discussion as being about two specific topics: Obstacles and Elevation. They impact one another and there's a lot of synergy, so talking about them both here still makes sense.

OBSTACLES
The way I understand it (and a reflection on how I was commenting about this issue earlier) is that the map is covered with hexagons, and the hexagons are the spaces occupied by units. However, there can be certain features on the edges of these hexagons - such as walls, vegetation, etc. - that can be a factor when it comes to units moving or attacking from one hexagon to the next.

These features aren't large enough to occupy the entire hex, and so are not considered terrain. However, the entirety of that specific edge of the hexagon is affected by this feature, so whenever an attack or a unit crosses this edge, special conditions need to be sorted. Does the wall block the bullets? Does the hedgerow stop unit movement? These need to be addressed in order to deal with questions on how attacks and unit movement are resolved.

ELEVATION
When it comes to elevation, and the business about needing to be "one hex away" to shoot beyond the border hex, I understand this but I suppose imagining it in three dimensions is required. Imagine if you were a unit standing at the base of a plateau. If you look up at that edge, at best you'll see only things atop that plateau.

However, if you were standing some distance away from that plateau's edge (and in X3M's example, he's suggesting one hex's distance away), you can actually see further along in that same direction, as your line of sight isn't blocked by the edge of the plateau being right in front of your face.

Hopefully this has helped with clarifying. X3M, feel free to correct me if necessary. :)

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Border Affecting Range

X3M wrote:
When the other hexagon is higher. Then this will be the only hexagon that can be shot. Other hexagons behind cannot be seen at all, this depends on how far the attacker stands away from the border. (Unless ballistics). If it has one more hexagon in between, then it can shoot +1 hexagon behind the border.
For the record: I understand this, but personally I think it's a bit too fiddly for my tastes. I'd streamline it so that firing beyond higher elevations simply increases the penalty to hit.

You allow for some highly-tactical positioning maneuvers with this rule, and I can see the appeal as an addition to a detailed, skirmish-battle system. But again, going into that fine-grain of detail really isn't my cup of tea.

Sometimes, I wish I was more of a wargamer. :)

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I should make a visual. Because this sounds over the top...?

I hope, this clears up a lot.
So far, you got it perfectly right @let-off studios
Some rules are still relatively new. Especially the distance to the border rule.
Perhaps, I make a mistake in explaining.
But that is what this forum is for.

Either way. I guess I try to describe it in short descriptions.

***

The board
The board consists of hexagons that are considered to be a region.
These regions also share a border with each adjacent region.

Pieces can move through regions and borders.
But can only rest in regions.

The 2 fields
A region is compiled of 2 terrain types and 1 altitude number.
A border is compiled of 1 terrain type.

The field effects
A terrain type adds space and obstruction to the game.
The altitude difference reduces space and adds obstruction.

Placement and movement
To see if your pieces can rest in a region.
The space is calculated from the 2 terrain types.

To see if your pieces can move through a region.
The same space is used.

To see if your pieces can move through a border.
The space is calculated from the 1 terrain type, which is multiplied by 2.
If there is a difference of altitude between the 2 regions around this border. This difference is used as a factor of (6-#)/6th for those units.

Special note:
Moving upwards or down will use the same factor. There is no jumping!

Example:
A basic region and border has a maximum of 3600 space.
Let's assume that we are looking at grasslands border of which the altitudes of the 2 adjacent regions are 3 and 5. The units that want to cross this border are basic.
Due to propulsion types, the space is only 2400 for these particular units.
The difference in height is 2. This means that the movement on that border will be 4/6th * 2400 = 1600.

Combat
To see if your pieces can shoot through a region.
The basic obstruction is calculated from the 2 terrain types.

To see if your pieces can shoot through a border.
The basic obstruction is calculated from the 1 terrain type. This time, there is no multiplying with 2.
If there is a difference of altitude between the 2 regions around this border. This difference is used as obstruction instead of the basic obstruction.

Special notes:
-Most projectiles will go only up or down.
If they can do both, it is called a ballistic.
-Shooting upwards is the only direction that will add obstruction.
-Shooting downwards will still discard the border obstruction, resulting in a clear view for those that have high ground.
-Shooting upwards, also has range reduction, equal to the difference in height.
-Shooting upwards or down, also has blind spots "beyond", depending on the altitude difference and the distance towards the border.
Example:
The units with a range of 10 stand at a distance of 3 from the border. The difference in altitude is 1. These units can shoot the first 3 regions beyond this border, which is a range of 6. And the same units on these regions can return fire as well.
If the same situation occurs, except for the altitude difference is 5. The range is reduced to 5 for the low ground. Then only the first 2 regions beyond the border can be shot from the low ground. The high ground keeps the reach of 3, thus keeps its 6 range.

When the total obstruction is calculated. For each point, the player will roll a die of 5/6th.
2 dice equal 1 die of 4/6th.
4 dice equal 1 die of 3/6th.
6 dice equal 1 die of 2/6th.
10 dice equal 1 die of 1/6th.
More than 10 dice is allowed, but a waste of resources.

X3M asks a question: wrote:
I ponder about including range reduction of 1 for every 6 obstruction points?

let-off studios wrote:
For the record: I understand this, but personally I think it's a bit too fiddly for my tastes. I'd streamline it so that firing beyond higher elevations simply increases the penalty to hit.

You allow for some highly-tactical positioning maneuvers with this rule, and I can see the appeal as an addition to a detailed, skirmish-battle system. But again, going into that fine-grain of detail really isn't my cup of tea.

Sometimes, I wish I was more of a wargamer. :)


Your suggestion of streamlining is noted.

Perhaps I discard a big portion and make something simpler. I'll come back to that later.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Regarding combat and altitude effects only

Ok. So I was thinking about considering only the 3D effects of higher terrain.
It is indeed fidly as how you described it.
And it is still fidly how I describe it.

In fact, it is a lot of checking. So here is my proposal for now. And I need to check with my inner circle that still plays the game.

***

A player can always shoot from high to low.
A player never can shoot from low to high;
-unless being attacked.
-unless being an X-ray or Ballistic.

When attacked, only a few factors are used.
The border obstruction is discarded if they are not flat.
For each height difference; range is reduced by 1, obstruction is increased by 1 for every region after the height increase.

Example:
Johny gets shot at from above. He may finally shoot upwards.
Border 1: seems to be flat with bushes; 2 obstruction is added.
Region 1: seems to be empty; no obstruction is added.
Border 2: seems to raise the field by 1; no obstruction is added.
Region 2: seems to be empty, but is 1 higher; 1 obstruction is added.
Border 3: seems to be flat and empty; 0 obstruction are added.
Region 3: seems to be empty, but is 1 higher; 1 obstruction is added.
Border 4: seems to raise the field by 1 more; no obstruction is added.
Region 4: seems to be empty, but is 2 higher; 2 obstruction is added.

The height difference is 2, so range reduction is 2. At a distance of 4, a minimum range of 6 is required.
The effect by height and distance of this height is 4 obstruction points.
Another 2 where added. The total is 6 in this situation.
Which is a roll of 2/6th. Only 33% will reach the target.

PS. The one shooting at Johny has 2 obstruction points. Which is a roll of 4/6th. Thus 67% :)

apeloverage
Offline
Joined: 08/01/2008
let-off studios wrote:the map

let-off studios wrote:
the map is covered with hexagons, and the hexagons are the spaces occupied by units. However, there can be certain features on the edges of these hexagons - such as walls, vegetation, etc. - that can be a factor when it comes to units moving or attacking from one hexagon to the next.

So why isn't it a normal hex map, with obstacles placed on the edges of the hexes?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
apeloverage wrote:let-off

apeloverage wrote:
let-off studios wrote:
the map is covered with hexagons, and the hexagons are the spaces occupied by units. However, there can be certain features on the edges of these hexagons - such as walls, vegetation, etc. - that can be a factor when it comes to units moving or attacking from one hexagon to the next.

So why isn't it a normal hex map, with obstacles placed on the edges of the hexes?


In a sense. It is.

Or do you ask: Why each hexagon doesn't have its own border?

The answer to that question is the complexity of the game.
The regions are a mix of 2 terrain types.
A forrest with grass, makes it thinner. Simple bushes if you will.
For clear understanding during the game, these regions have a 2 letter code.

The borders are small, so, only one type of terrain should be allowed.

If I want to make the game simpler. I need better graphics. And more terrains should be described to the player.
At this moment, the types are quantumized. Meaning that each type is unique. I have 8:
City, Clear, Grass, Sand, Water, Snow, Forrest, Rocks.
These can make 36 mixed terrains.

The letter code on the borders is a bit trouble some. So, the pure types are simple to be recognised.
Maybe I should have a different way of graphics. But i am not an artist.

tikey
tikey's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/31/2017
Maybe looking at terrains and

Maybe looking at terrains and borders through their function and trying to simplify those instead of worrying about types.
I see for now three elements regarding spaces: Terrain - Borders - Height
Now, how do they work as a system and how could you simplify it?
If I were designing a system like that I would organize it like this:
Terrain - Influences defense and movement speed
Borders - Blocks movement
Height - Affects LOS / Range / Accuracy (pick the most appropriate)
In this case each element responds to a specific function and how those elements combine is what creates depth.

Obviously this doesn't cover every case, an evident issue is that drastic changes in elevation should have an effect on movement, but for our hypothetical design exercise it is enough to demonstrate the idea.

From what I can gather you have a very simulation driven design philosophy and this might be to simplified for what you want to achieve but maybe it can help you see the problem from another perspective.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Well, a simplified version surely requires a bigger board

If I where to remove the borders.
Then I am left with the region hexagons.
They can take over the effects of the borders, regarding everything.

However, I would like to make use of cliffs and ridges for sure. No matter what form they are in.
Without the borders system: They would be 1 hexagon wide.

And the rules of how obstruction would work, would be in the way?

No matter how I look at it. The region would be in full effect for any faction. Meaning obstruction to projectiles, down to 33%.

I still could do that units shooting down can ignore the effects of 1 region for every altitude they have. Meaning, they can ignore this ridge. But only if the ridge is at least 1 altitude lower.

The units shooting from low to high ground? They need to have at least 3 range now if I keep including the range reduction. And theoretically would be influenced by the ridge. Which would now be (5/6)^6=33%.

I have no idea, how to solve this last problem.
The border system was originally intended to keep the board smaller. And to keep the obstruction rules as logical as possible.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
When I remove the "borders"

How to implement ridges?
What rules would work best?

Can't have something that isn't part of vision impaired, to impair the vision.

Edit:
A flat surface hexagon between 2 other hexagons, using the rocks terrain type. Will be adding 6 obstruction points and reduces space for moving units down to 0.
6 obstruction points is usual comparable with an accuracy roll of 33%. Meaning, 2 out of 6 shots will hit.

What if this same rocks terrain type is a ridge instead? Thus we have on one end, a higher terrain.

apeloverage
Offline
Joined: 08/01/2008
X3M wrote:Or do you ask: Why

X3M wrote:
Or do you ask: Why each hexagon doesn't have its own border?

I'm wondering why you aren't using the more usual setup, such as this:

board example

Where some features effect a hex (such as forest and buildings), and some effect interaction between two hexes (such as walls and roads).

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
apeloverage wrote:X3M

apeloverage wrote:
X3M wrote:
Or do you ask: Why each hexagon doesn't have its own border?

I'm wondering why you aren't using the more usual setup, such as this:

![board example](https://cf.geekdo-images.com/medium/img/LsVN5M2eIjRHeWCr-7TpqdQWUkQ=/fit-in/500x500/filters:no_upscale()/pic180962.jpg)

Where some features effect a hex (such as forest and buildings), and some effect interaction between two hexes (such as walls and roads).

You are trolling?

I am doing that.
It isn't just hedges.
I got other stuff as well, water, rocks. Hexk, even a grass lane between 2 roads is a possibility.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Another possibility?

There are games out there that have a ridge right in the middle of the hexagon. This follows the principle of having roads or rivers, right in the middle of hexagons.

I could follow this example.
But how to indicate elevation difference on the same hexagon?
Also, the 2 types would certainly be split, to indicate the ridge effect.
Ridges can be any type, except water.

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Different Elevation = Different Hex

X3M wrote:
But how to indicate elevation difference on the same hexagon?
Also, the 2 types would certainly be split, to indicate the ridge effect.
Ridges can be any type, except water.
I think the main reason different hexes are on a map is to show distance, but also to show what terrain is there and to compare its elevation to those around it.

I actually disagree with you regarding your comparison of roads and ridges. Whenever I've seen roads or streams in the "middle" of a hex, the assumption is that the hex is otherwise of generally the same elevation within the hex, the only difference being the feature that crosses into or through it. If you're ending up with hexes that have differing elevations, then perhaps you might want to consider spreading the elevation change between two adjacent hexes.

Put the road or stream along a hex border, and then have your specific feature dominant on one hex or the other. For example, if it's a stream
have it dominant on the lower-elevation hex (unless it terminates in rapids or a waterfall). For a road, indicate on the hex or on the border indicator which hex the road occupies (since you're not going to have a road straddling two different elevations, unless it's a road going down/up a hill).

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I see your point.

There has been a time, where a road would go through an hexagon. And go uphill upwards into the driving direction. In a sense, I can still do so.

The other one would be the road being tilted sideways, thus the left lane would be down and the right lane would be uphill in a sideways manner. This of course is completely non sense and not used. (There are no racing tracks, hmmmm)

I often used bare concrete going uphill as a replacement to roads. It is like the best surface to move on. But not in a certain direction.

I like your suggestion about the water. Also the "unless it is a waterfall". Which makes absolutely sense. Water locks are also a possibility (I live in the Netherlands, come on :D ).

Either way, your comment is still pushing me into keeping the system that I have (regions AND borders). All I need to do is simply explain it in simple terms to new players.

I'll keep it. The only thing that is left for me to do. Is making the rules regarding altitude effects as simple as possible.

***

I think, this is the best summary I can come up with to open my "chapter on the board". Please let me know what you think about it.

Horizontal:
Obstruction effects accuracy and movement, for regions and borders.
Obstruction effects space on regions.

Height (only between 2 adjacent hexagons):
Obstruction effects are ignored for borders.
Altitude effects accuracy and movement.

Then I go into detail on each situation with an example.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
3D printing, kinda asks for simplicity

Ok, this kills my current rules as well.

For starters:
Implementing borders seems to be very hard to do. Especially if they are a different type of terrain. The 3D printer that we have is insufficient. While trying to solve this scenario, we should try to do without.

This means, I should have a backup plan of having no borders in my game.
The borders separated 1 range units. Where melee units had trouble reaching the ranged units despite a temporary +1 range. Which was good.

So, no more borders then? But higher terrain would automatically have a cliff in between.
Range 1 units can still fire over a river, if the +1 rule is active. It simply means that 0 ranged units can't anymore.
Melee units cannot shoot upwards anyway.

So, all is good in those regards if I remove the borders as intended. No little walls of hedges. No small rivers. etc. It makes the game easier to learn.

So, what is my problem then?

How to get from low to high ground...??
I need ramps...?!

***

Some of the questions are a bit related to the 3D printing.

How will all the vision rules work around these ramps?
How will movement work around these ramps?
How to indicate that a hexagon is a ramp?
In what directions should the ramp work?
What about a height difference of more than 1, let's say 5?

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut