# 3D hexagon boards that make use of ramps

9 replies [Last post]
X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

Any 3D game. That is based on hexagons. That make use of ramps.
I want to see as much as possible of these for good orientation.

Heroscape doesn't have ramps, right?

let-off studios
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
No Ramps in HeroScape, etc.

Nope, there are no ramps in HeroScape. If I recall correctly, figures could no ascend to a higher elevation if that elevation was taller than the figure.

I was going to add something to your other thread where you mention that the ramps were problematic. I've created a diagram to better-explain this concept:

https://imgur.com/gallery/VvJl3mQ

On the map, a small ramp is placed along a hex's edge. If a unit has action points equal to or greater than the height of the adjacent terrain, then the unit can move to the higher terrain. There are no such restrictions when moving to the lower elevation.

This explanation assumes that there are different units with different numbers of action points. If this isn't the case, then you can simply assign a number to each variety of unit, representing the height to which they can ascend via a ramp.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Mixed feelings, mostly happy due to idea's

I kinda like the idea of placing the ramp on the lower elevation only. And then we need only 5 for the 5 different heights.

However, with this idea. And the idea of having a 3D "lego" board. I could go both ways now.
Either a game with, or without borders.
Either a game where the ramp is always placed with always movement, or only to allow movement.

4 options now, with the same pieces.

***

Movement goes differently in our game.
The height reduces the ammount of pieces. Instead of 6, the highest difference allows for only 1.
It costs turns to get them up 1 by 1.

let-off studios
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Chosen Mechanics

I wasn't certain how you had calculated movement in your game, whether roads or other features were required to go up or down elevation, and so on. But this seemed like a reasonable way to go about it. I also think that if you really want your players to clearly understand their options at a glance, and you're dealing with a lot of fine-detailed movement mechanics, an actual 3D map is required.

As far as I remember, HeroScape didn't require any additional features on the map to assist the change of elevations beyond the hexes themselves. They went strictly for height of the miniatures for that mechanic. So it was fairly reasonable to determine, and consistent with various figures (ranging from humanoid to enormous dragons). There were also flying units that disregarded elevation when moving, and only had to worry about enough hexes for them to stand on unobstructed.

...Man, with all this talk about HS lately, I am remembering all the good times we had with it...! :)

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
let-off studios

let-off studios wrote:

...Man, with all this talk about HS lately, I am remembering all the good times we had with it...! :)

You aren't the only one :)

In my game, the air units crash into mountains (not really, they simply can't move) Unless they can make use of an extra lift.
Seeing the reduction effects. Each level adds 50 percent to movement weight.

This comes in handy when the height is 6 or more.
Of course, if the creation of such maps proofs to be too much. I can reduce the rules to 3 instead of 6.

Talked with my cousin about the 3D printing. Your idea hit spot on.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Cheap 3D printer

Seems the 3D printer makes the hexagons, more like trapeziums due to the process.

While wanting to ask right now, how to get an solution. I just realized the we simply could make the basis smaller. So....
NVM!

But at least, you guys are updated about our current antics :D

let-off studios
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Happy Accident

X3M wrote:
Seems the 3D printer makes the hexagons, more like trapeziums due to the process.
Well hey, they good news is that if you make them all the same shape, they'll all still fit together anyway. :)

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
let-off studios wrote:X3M

let-off studios wrote:
X3M wrote:
Seems the 3D printer makes the hexagons, more like trapeziums due to the process.
Well hey, they good news is that if you make them all the same shape, they'll all still fit together anyway. :)

The little hexagons that would be added to a bigger one, are to small to print. Even the 16 mm diameter hexagons are too small. And these too have +0.3 mm due to the bad printer.

My idea to have upside down trapeziums will not work. The printer prints with 0.4 mm pixels. While the of-set is 0.3 mm. I thought this meant that the top would be larger and correct. But it turns out, the whole hexagon is larger.

So, 2 of 12 mm or 1 of 24 mm. We would get 2x12.3=24.6 mm and 24.3 mm. Still, my cousin doesn't want to give up.

This 3d printer is one of the oldest. No doubt, many trouble lay ahead.
We are planning to discard the idea of having little hexagons in a big one. Instead, we will only print the big ones as simple hexagons. Then we add figures to indicate any mutation that we have.

The figures COULD be:
yellow dessert-hill
dark-green tree
dark-brown rock
white snow-plane
blue water-plane or even "road" like
green grass-plane
light-brown or light grey, very plane plane :) or even "road" like
dark grey city block

But really, we are going ahead again in time. We should first see, if we can even get a flat hexagon board together that is modular...
And the same for ramps.

Seeing as how things go.
My cousin and I decided to add a new rule regarding movement. Every altitude difference costs 1 Speed. And 1 AP can be paid again for every missing speed.

There are 2 variants of ramps. Which should make up the entire hexagon, due to the above named printing issue's.
1 version is where 1 hexagon will meet 1 hexagon on the other side.
1 version is where 2 hexagons will meet 2 hexagons on the other side.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Working on the new rules

So, if I am to add obstruction points and space points to the terrain and objects.
What would be wise?
Having pure terrain be like "100%" and an object adds roughly another 50%?

Example:
A forest has 4 obstruction points.
And has 2 space points.
We add a tree object, it has 2 obstruction points and minus 1 space point.
The total is now 6 obstruction points with only 1 space point.

Example2:
Grasslands has 0 obstruction points.
And has 4 space points.
We add the same tree again.
The total is now 2 obstruction points and 3 space points.

Terrain and objects are going to have different space points for certain propulsion. Would that be too complicated?

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
In agreement

The guys that played my game the most. Feel that I need to keep terrain simple.

Only adding up the space and obstruction points. In a sense that makes... sense.

Ok, so the idea is simple:
A pure terrain simply counts twice.

So a forest will be 2x a forest.
If I want to have a lake with my tree's. I simply add a lake block.
This will only count the space and obstruction once of the forest.

Of course, adding a tree to the forest would also mean 2x a forest.
Perhaps, I could have an exception to the rule?
That a forest and a tree, somehow is more dense?