Skip to Content
 

Removing the rope, 2 years later

28 replies [Last post]
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Examples of trajectory finding
Examples of trajectory finding 2
Examples of trajecotry finding 3
Examples of trajectory finding 4

Not sure if people understand the original topic.

So I make a new topic. FRESH...!!!

***

Regarding a wargame on a hexagon board.

The path of attack, or vision if you will.

Has been determined by making a parallellogram that follows the hexagon grid. The sharpest points of this parallellogram are the attacker and defencer.

Then the defending player determines the path that the projectiles from the attacker are allowed to make.
This path will be inside the parallellogram.
This path will go as much as possible towards the defender, so only 2 possible directions. And a zigzag is possible too.

Turns out, in some occasions. The terrain influence is almost twice as big than with the rope version.
Especially when the range is higher.
So, could there be a way where the defender does not determine the path? And the path is thus predictable by the attacker as well?

One of my fellow players suggested using a die to determine where the projectiles would go. Left or right. But this doesn't work well either. Since paths would tend to prefer a corner in the long run.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Tried many things so far

Zigzag
The attacker determines the long side and the short side of the parralelogram.
From the attack position, the long side will hop first and have 2 hops.
Then the other direction is taken.

This until the parralelogram is symetrical.
Now the attacker can choose a direction, but has to do the other direction right after.

This still creates a lot of down time.

Average
Both attacker and defender choose their own path in the parralelogram.
The average effect is taken, and rounded upwards.
Depending on if there is return fire. The players can choose a bad or good path.
The attacker has to declare first!

We are the most saticfactory with this approach for now.

Do you have an idea?

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Hmm... Can you post a picture?

I'm trying to visualize this "parallelogram" and I am picturing more of a "trapezoid" instead. I'd really need to see a PICTURE to get a concrete idea for this topic. TBH I'm not sure I have the correct picture of this in my mind and a picture from YOU would clarify things quite a bit.

I've also noticed that nobody commented on the initial post/thread because probably like me, it is hard to understand when you can't have a clear vision about whatever it is you are trying to explain.

Parallelogram implies that the sides are all "parallel". I can't picture a longer side and travelling FURTHER, to suddenly reach the longer side and then be forced to travel BACK along the shorter (and parallel) side.

That's why I am picturing a TRAPEZOID as a more plausible shape... Am I correct??? This may be a naming issue and the picture in my mind may be correct. But the only way to ensure this is true... is IF you can post an image about this "parallelogram" and how you visualize it...

Because I think it's the wrong shape TBH.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Another small comment...

BTW I know that a Parallelogram is a Trapezoid with all 4 Parallel sides. Whereas the Trapezoid only has 2 Parallel sides. But still it's a question of properly VISUALIZING your particular scenario.

Please share with us a sample SHAPE or an image with the Hexagons and their relationship with the "line of sight" (as you call it).

That would help de-mystify the issue at hand. It's not too complicated to add an image to the Original Message/Post (OP)... And just be sure that the image is a JPG between 100 to 200k in size. Something Black & White should suffice or taking a picture of the "hexes" in question and tracing over them to demonstrate the shape might be ideal...

In any case, please let us know how you can better demonstrate what you are trying to achieve and the correct shape so we can provide you with more accurate responses.

Cheers Ramon!

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

I created an example of what is happening.

In the picture you see a hexagon map, simplified.
The grey fields are obstruction. Let's say each obstruction has 2 points.

A red A indicates the attacker.
The green D indicates the defender.

This is at a range of 18.
We got some very special units that have this range.
For the sake of the problem, I am using this range as example.
(Don't tell me to remove such ranges, that is not the point here)

Rope method
We use a rope from A to D to see where the projectiles go.
At such distance, it is harder to see how the projectiles go. It is clumsy and when a 3D board is used or many units are in the way. This causes troubles.

Either way, the answer here is that the rope touches 3 obstruction hexagons.

Several ways to work with this are:
- Each touched hexagon counts only half. We have 3 points now.
- A die is rolled for every possible obstruction. Whether or not per attack die. Obstruction can be 0, 2, 4 or 6.
- An average is used of what both players want. 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 can occur. However, most common is 3 again.

Within the parallelogram, thick red lines
There is only one way to work with this...
An average is used of what both players want. This time the most optimal path can have 0 in a much easier way, see the violet line.
The green line indicates what the defender might choose. This goes up to 6 hexagons or 12 obstruction points. The average is clearly 6 now.
Most down time is for the defender to determine the maximum obstruction possible.

ASAP method
As described before. The zigzag path is chosen to be as close as possible to the size of the parallelogram. In this example, both sides have the same size.
So you simply have a zigzag path. The first direction is a choice now. The attacker needs to check both ways for the most optimal path. See both the thin red and blue line. And it is 1 hexagon with 2 obstruction. Thin red line.
The defender can try to get a higher score, which is only 2 hexagon or 4 obstruction. See the thin blue line.
The average is 3. And this comes closest to the rope method. But still takes a bit of time. It is also the one that feels the fairest.

The major problem with the zigzag method is:
With one side being longer than another side. You start with the longer side. The defender has the same, but from his position.
The longer side might require 2 or more hops. And there is no way to determine how many hops you need without a rope... or counting.
You see, there is some calculation to do.
For example, if the long side of the parallelogram is 10 and the short side is only 3. That means that the trajectory of the weapons need to hop 3 to 4 times on the long side. Before it can hop 1 time in the direction of the short side.
So players need to count the long and short side. Then divide the 2 numbers.
And here we get some trouble too.

Going 3 in the long side gives us now 7L and 3W.
Although we know we need to go 1 to the side.
This is when we choose to hop 3 all the time.
7L 2W. 4L 2W. 4L 1W. 1L 1W. 1L 0W
If we pick 4 to hop, this is silly as well.
Maybe we need to re-determine every time?
Getting us a 4 hops at 4L 1W. Which creates a little different bending at the end.

And of course, the defender would get a different path.

That is why the method of simply being inside the parallelogram is still a valid and faster way in a lot of occasions. Albeit not always fair. And players start doing a little bit of a chess deployment.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Battle master used one of the

Battle master used one of the shortest path for the cannon.

Making the opponent select the shortest path is one way to balance the mechanism.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
larienna wrote:Battle master

larienna wrote:
Battle master used one of the shortest path for the cannon.

Making the opponent select the shortest path is one way to balance the mechanism.

In other words. The defender decides on the path.
But how to do it efficiently and fair?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Still a bit of downtime but...

In the given example, the defender would take a look at the thin red and blue line that are zigzagging.
The worst path for the attacker would be 3 obstruction or 6 points.
I rather have him choose one path. That of 1 or 2 obstruction or 2 to 4 points.

Would it be fair to say that the defender can do this for any given situation?
I think that a path should start and end with the longer sides.
The rules of how this should happen can be set in stone.

- Determine the long and short side of the parallellogram.
- Divide the long by the short side. And 2 numbers emerge. The rounded downwards and rounded upwards number.
- The defender starts with the direction of the long side of the parallellogram with the rounded downwards number.
- Then in order, short, long, short, long hops. Eventually the long hops will be the number rounded upwards.
- Only when both sides have an equal length, the defender can make choices. I think it is save to say that both paths are considered.

At least this is still fair.
But players need to calculate a division.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Thanks for the picture...

It says a 1000 words for sure! I was confused in thinking you were talking in Three-Dimensions and that's why I was visualizing a Trapezoid. Indeed with seeing the image I understand a lot better. Now that you've shown us an image of the "Parallelogram" ... I see what you mean about the issues with the path being the "tightest" and the "general scenario" which is the thick Red Lines.

My first reaction is that the thick Red Lines (Parallelogram) are too off the DIRECT "Line-of-sight" even if they provide the simplest of paths. There is too much distance travelling to go further away and then closer. But it is the "simplest" path TBH (from what I can see).

ATM I have nothing more to say ... Because you've covered a lot of options and for now, I don't see how I can IMPROVE upon this. Especially with obstacles and "direct" line-of-sight.

Let me think about it and stare at the picture some more... And see what comes from it. Like I said, it seems like you have covered a LOT of ground with the different possibilities.

I'll get back to you as I think about it... Cheers!

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Think about this...

questccg wrote:
I'll get back to you as I think about it...

I've actually thought about it and I'm going to share with you an idea that I have used for a "Card Game". Yeah... I know it sounds like it's a real different TYPE of game. But in another way, it's all about "controlling" the "field" of attack.

It goes something like this:

questccg wrote:
Instead of "worrying" about ONLY the "line-of-sight", maybe you can use a "principle" (or adapt it). The thing is that there exists three (3) TYPES of "ranges" which vary per unit.

In my "Card Game", each TYPE can only attack the SAME TYPE. Maybe you can ADAPT this concept!?

Basically if you have three (3) TYPES of "ranges" as follows:

1. Soldiers (any kind of soldier) and natural obstacles (like Trees and Rocks, natural impediments).

2. Medium Vehicle (jeeps, hummers, etc.)

3. Heavy Vehicles (tanks for example)

The RULES are very simple: Your "range" must be GREATER otherwise the "blocking" unit takes damage instead.

ONE (1) of the things that you were worried about is WHO decides on the PATH: the Attacker or the Defender. And by having 3 TYPES this means EVEN IF there are "obstacles" in the "line-of-sight", IF YOUR TYPE is greater ... YOU IGNORE that obstacle.

This is a bit of a DIFFERENT implementation than in my "Card Game" but the PRINCIPLE is the same.

The BOTTOM LINE is that a "Level-3" unit who shoots a "Level-2" unit, all the "Level-1" units and/or obstacles can be IGNORED such that your TARGET is the focus of the attack.

BUT a "Level-1" who shoots another "Level-1" unit gets blocked by another ANY "Level-1, 2 or 3" unit.

WHY does any of this matter???

Well in my "Card Game" I NEEDED to "restrict" who could attack who. Sort of like figuring out WHO chooses the best Trajectory.

These are just some IDEAS. I'm thinking you can REFINE them for your own purposes. IF I didn't explain the concept, please respond and I'll try to clarify any confusion or uncertainty.

Cheers!

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
You have to ask yourself

You have to ask yourself about what are the consequence of choosing a path or another.

In battle master, it was important, because your cannon ball could explode before arriving at the destination, and if did explode on one of your unit on the path, well sucks to be you.

But in other wargames, if an artillery can attack 5 hex away, it can target any unit within 5 hex. The path to reach that 5th hex is irrelevant.

If it's about blocking vision, like a line of sight in miniature game. Then you do an OR. If one of the path can see the target, it is a valid target. Happens in mini games where you can use any of the 4 corner of the unit to target the enemy.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Well Kristopher, I didn't

Well Kristopher,
I didn't even think about my units that have attributes, yet. They will be making things more complicated. So, if I can get the basics like super easy. This would help a lot.

But in a sense. Are you trying to say, that any object within the parallellogram should be considered?
And some units simply have it easier to overcome these obstacles?

Maybe you can give your oppinion about the options that I have given so far?

larienna wrote:
You have to ask yourself about what are the consequence of choosing a path or another.

The chance of defeating an opponent differs greatly.
The right path of 0 obstruction would mean 4 kills.
The wrong path of 6 obstruction points would mean only 1 kill.

larienna wrote:
If it's about blocking vision, like a line of sight in miniature game. Then you do an OR. If one of the path can see the target, it is a valid target. Happens in mini games where you can use any of the 4 corner of the unit to target the enemy.
It is all about blocking vision. And this goes with obstruction points. The maximum a field can give in obstruction points is 6. Which equals a 1/3th chance of hitting the target.
Even at only 5 hexes, this might be troublesome to determine. It depends on the angle how difficult it might be. I think I need to make another example to show.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
See the second picture

This picture holds 3 examples.
(It made us realize, that perhaps we should have 12 directions instead of 6)
I hope it doesn't look to chaotic.

Basics
Let us begin with explaining what is going on here.

The middle is a red hex. This is the attacker.
On the top right we have purple hexes at a distance of 6.
On the left and right, we have green hexes at a distance of 7.
On the right, we also have violet hexes at the same distance of 7.

I will be talking about 6th and 12th directions.
A hexagon has 6 sides, and going to either side is a 6th direction.
When going over the corners, you will be crossing the line, where 2 adjacent hexes touch each other. The very next hex is at a distance of 2. This is the 12th direction.

The hexagons on the right
Here I have simply drawn some obstructing hexagons.
The pruple lines as the line of sight.
The red lines when using a rope.

The way of how the red lines touch the obstruction hexagons. Would mean different weights of obstruction. However, this was too tedious. And the rope itself at greater distances would cause troubles.

Let's begin with targeting the purple hexes.
As you can see, several lines are drawn from the red hex to the purple hexes.
The different colours indicate different situations (sorry colourblind people)
The red line is simple, it goes directly to the target.
The green lines are the same situation as the first example picture.
There is no doubt anymore, but the parallellogram should be ignored here. The green line that goes right through the middle is the main line of vision. This is the benefit of using 12 directions instead of 6. But it will make players crosseyed when other situations occur.
The orange, yellow and blue lines are all parallellograms. There is a big parallellogram to spot, and a smaller one. The big one is with the 6 directions in mind. The smaller one is with 12 directions in mind.

In all these cases, every hex that is touched by the smaller parallellogram, is considered to be of influence. Even if you would draw a line with the rope. All hexes would be touched. Would it be safe to asume that every hex is only partly crossed. Thus should only partly count?
In that case, seeing as how this vision is 2 hexes wide. Could we simply add up all obstruction points and then divide by 2? Is this useful for bigger distances?

The green hexes on the left
These are at a distance of 7. And the distance is an odd number.
What happens now is that the big parallellograms have a hex that brings the FEELING that it is going OUTSIDE. I can't describe it in a better way.
The big question here is that, should these out of the box hexes even count?

The 12th direction clearly is needed here.
It is also here that I am doubting the simpler dividing.
Is the width 2 or 2.5 for the yellow?
The green and blue clearly show 0.5 now. I can't divide by 0.5.

Towards the purple hexes. We had the green going to be divided by 1 and blue divided by 2. And this is now proven wrong.
Perhaps looking at the amount of hexes inside the parallellogram instead? Where hexes barely touching the parallellogram count for 0.5.

Sure I could start counting. But this takes way to long. No doubt it would bring the game to a full stop if the rules of counting aren't clear.
While attempting over and over. I discovered that a hexagon on the parallellogram can be touched in 4 different ways:
- From corner to corner.
- From corner to a side.
- From side to side.
- Barely with a side.

If I am very precise, these 4 ways need different weight points.
And we used to use that fact in our rope method too.
Perhaps it can be used again. Considering that a hexagon inside the parallellogram counts as 100%. What would the weight be, of the other situations?

1/1 - Inside the parallellogram.
1/1 - Target location.
1/2 - From corner to corner.
1/2 - From corner to a side.
1/2 - From side to side.
1/2 - Barely with a side.

Wow, thanking myself!
The distance of 6 yields a score of 6 for each situation.
The distance of 7 yields a score of 7 for each situation...
except yellow. Here we get a score of 8.
I would love it if anyone of you tests this. See if you can manage. See how problematic this is.

Now, we know that that one extra score means that we counted to many. Here it starts where the parallellogram with 12th directions is to much too. Should the rule be that the hexagons on the outside corners of the parallellogram being discounted now?

semi conclusion

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
In a board game, you still

In a board game, you still want to keep thing simple. how about if you can trace 2 shortest path to target, there is no cover. if you can only only trace 1 path to target, there is partial cover.

Sure, longer range would allow more path making it harder to get obstructed than in short range, which somewhat makes sense.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Exactly!

X3M wrote:
Are you trying to say, that any object within the parallelogram should be considered? And some units simply have it easier to overcome these obstacles?

Yes, you understood correctly. One of your concerns was choosing a PATH and which player should choose. By having a TYPE of "Range", you reduce a lot of the obstacles in the way for many units, unless of course you are attacking with a Soldier.

But the again, you can categorize the "Soldiers" into three (3) groups:

1. Marines (Gunmen/Riflemen): blocked by ANY obstacle, low RANGE 4-6.

2. Grenadier: blocked by a Medium, Heavy units and natural obstacles (but not Marines), mid RANGE 6-8

3. Missile Launcher: not blocked by any units (designed to attack both Medium and Heavy units), higher RANGE 8-10.

Why do this? Well it's all about the "obstacles" in the Parallelogram. As you said. The idea is for more RANGED units, like Tanks and such that have longer RANGE, not to be "blocked" by obstacles to maximize their efficiency.

Like a Range 4-5 is good for Soldiers, longer range is better for Tanks. And they should NOT be blocked by enemy Soldiers and the likes.

So it's a matter of NOT BLOCKING the path of a longer ranged unit.

But yeah, you understood correctly!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
larienna wrote:In a board

larienna wrote:
In a board game, you still want to keep thing simple. how about if you can trace 2 shortest path to target, there is no cover. if you can only only trace 1 path to target, there is partial cover.

Sure, longer range would allow more path making it harder to get obstructed than in short range, which somewhat makes sense.

This.

Sounds good tbh.

I will see if I can do this with obstruction points in mind. A bigger distance makes targets look smaller.
Etc.etc.
I like this.

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

questccg wrote:
X3M wrote:
Are you trying to say, that any object within the parallelogram should be considered? And some units simply have it easier to overcome these obstacles?

Yes, you understood correctly. One of your concerns was choosing a PATH and which player should choose. By having a TYPE of "Range", you reduce a lot of the obstacles in the way for many units, unless of course you are attacking with a Soldier.

But the again, you can categorize the "Soldiers" into three (3) groups:

1. Marines (Gunmen/Riflemen): blocked by ANY obstacle, low RANGE 4-6.

2. Grenadier: blocked by a Medium, Heavy units and natural obstacles (but not Marines), mid RANGE 6-8

3. Missile Launcher: not blocked by any units (designed to attack both Medium and Heavy units), higher RANGE 8-10.

Why do this? Well it's all about the "obstacles" in the Parallelogram. As you said. The idea is for more RANGED units, like Tanks and such that have longer RANGE, not to be "blocked" by obstacles to maximize their efficiency.

Like a Range 4-5 is good for Soldiers, longer range is better for Tanks. And they should NOT be blocked by enemy Soldiers and the likes.

So it's a matter of NOT BLOCKING the path of a longer ranged unit.

But yeah, you understood correctly!


Well, this is primarily the main objective of the parallellogram.
So, a star like vision will be happening.
I will see how the 12th direction will do in this regard.
And of course the number of hexes counted. This is as fair as possible.

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

The third picture is going to be a test for range 11 and 12.
Also, the semi conclusion didn't get posted.
I quoted a part of it.

X3M wrote:

1/1 - Inside the parallellogram.
1/1 - Target location.
1/2 - From corner to corner.
1/2 - From corner to a side.
1/2 - From side to side.
1/2 - Barely with a side.

semi conclusion

The fairness creates the difficulty of determining. This should be made simpler.

I need to test the scoring method for a greater distance. Preferably at odd and even distances.
Either way, at this point I think I need to include a manual of which hexagons will have influence at certain directions and distances. It would be no problem to set this up. It would only be problematic for players to read it.

Maybe I should turn the idea into a chess like situation. Where attacking at an angle is a bad idea.
The effectivness of units would be a star like shape.
Seeing as how this affects both sides, it is still balanced.

It is doable. And it includes having all hexes to be included as suggested. And to top it off. In order to determine the parallellogram. The players have 2 pawns to place. 1 For each corner of the parallellogram. Which means that there are 4 direct lines, easy to follow. A ruler can then be moved 1 hex at a time, systematically counting every hex there is.
Seeing as how there are less obstacles than a total of hexes. This can be done swiftly, even for higher ranges.

While doing this, I realized that having a direct path. I counted the obstruciton as a whole. Actually, if this is a parallellogram without width, the line is counted twice.

PS. In the second picture when I mentioned that yellow was the excemption in being 8, it was actually 9. Just to show how difficult it can be if all hexes are considered.

Here are the results for the 11 and 12 range with a line of mountains in between.

Target - Obstruction - Total Hexes - Width - Obstruction via rope - Total Hexes via rope

12:
A - 1 - 12 - 1 - 1 - 12
B - 1 - 12 - 2 - 2 - 15
C - 2 - 19 - 3 - 1 - 14
D - 3 - 22 - 4 - 1 - 15
E - 2 - 19 - 3 - 1 - 12
F - 1 - 12 - 2 - 1 - 12 or 13??
G - 1 - 12 - 1 - 1 - 12

11:
a - 1.0 - 11 - 1.0 - 1 - 11
b - 1.0 - 11 - 2.0 - 2 - 13 or 15??
c - 2.0 - 17 - 3.0 - 1 - 13 or 15??
d - 3.0 - 19 - 3.5 - 1 - 13
e - 2.0 - 17 - 2.5 - 1 - 11 or 13??
f - 1.5 - 11 - 1.5 - 1 - 11

***

The rope method is a complete mess at this range already. So I might as well discard discussing it.

There is a good symetry going on. This pleases me.
The exception is 'f' at range 11. Where the obstruction counted fairly is 1.5. I don't mind though. Because this star would be more like a flower now.

And in regards to seeing multiple path's. The 2 pawns indicate the width now in a fair way. The origin counts as one, and every extra hex as a halve. I can't do much with this number, except for showing symetry. It also shows that 'd' is troublesome. The other width is 4.0. This can hardly be seen already. And mistakes can happen. So using the width is out of the question now.

***

The board is 2d. I used a 1d wall. But if we consider all hexes in the parallellogram. The number of obstruction will grow exponentially with the width as well. While counting the total hexes is a better way. I wonder if it is possible to use these as modifiers.

Still, this is way to cumbersome if you ask me.
So, for now, this is what players do:

Quote:
2 pawns are placed to indicate the parallellogram.
Any obstruction within the parallellogram counts twice.
And any that is on the lines or barely touching from the outside, counts once. The total points are divided by 2.
These are the obstruction points to be used on the accuracy.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I kept trying

And got accros a nice idea. Combining 2 methods into one.
I could cut in both methods too!!! See the 4th example

X3M wrote:
- Determine the corners of the parallellogram. Place the 2 pawns to keep track.
- Look at each bar and determine the middle. Make note of the obstruction points.
- Each middle will go through a hexagon from corner to corner, or on the border of 2.
- Through a hexagon counts 100%.
- Through the middle of 2 hexagons, each count for 50%.
- In case of half obstruction points, roll 1 time a die, 4 or higher means rounding upwards. 3 or less means rounding downwards.

Note that this method always equals the range.

Let me know if this was understandable.
Let me know what you think about this method, can it still be improved?

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Just theorizing

X3M wrote:
Let me know if this was understandable.

Very understandable for sure. That 4th image definitely explains the concept better ... But...

X3M wrote:
Let me know what you think about this method, can it still be improved?

I'm thinking that it feels "just a bit complex". Just a quick comment to the distances in that 4th image:

The Brown to Red RANGE is about 11 hexes away. The Red to Green RANGE is about 10 hexes away. And the Green to Brown RANGE is about 13 hexes away.

Why is this important. Well taking the Brown-to-Red and going South-East 4 hexes and then 7 hexes South, that is 11 hexes. The RANGE is the same as in your example (image). So establishing RANGE FIRST is the KEY. Why? Because you need to see if the target is within RANGE FIRST. And then worry about OBSTACLES NEXT.

As I explained earlier (in my previous comment), you don't need to do all that fancy GEOMETRY. I can get 13 hexes just from the hexes without the need of a parallelogram. So I know the RANGE.

The NEXT important factor is: "Can anyone BLOCK me???" And that means given the TYPE of units, you can figure out if there is a target in the way or not. Here's where the GENIUS comes into play. Assume the OPPOSITE of what you were thinking: "Anything IN THE PARALLELOGRAM is IGNORED." And go with "Anything IN THE PARALLELOGRAM BLOCKS the attack." Just be patient and I'll come to the reasoning soon...

Then for each unit INSIDE the parallelogram compare TYPES. If the ATTACKING unit is of greater "type", ignore that unit inside. Keep doing this until you reach the DEFENDER.

Do you see how EASY this is??? At a GLANCE after some familiarity, you'll easily know if ANYTHING Blocks the attack and therefore gets hit INSTEAD of the TARGET.

I'm going to show you how I computed the distances MUCH EASIER (the CYAN PATHS):

That's easy to do. NEXT: you don't have to approximate the PATH like you did with the YELLOW lines. You simply ASSUME that EVERYTHING in the CYAN parallelogram (I have drawn both sides for 2 attackers) will BLOCK the attack. This is an ASSUMPTION. I know it's hard to do because the parallelogram is wider in the "Brown-to-Red" ATTACK. But it's easy to see if ANYTHING is blocking. And that's where the TYPE comes into play.

If BROWN is a TANK (Lvl 3 TYPE) and RED is a Hummer (Lvl 2 TYPE)... All you need to do is OBSERVE if there is ANOTHER TANK (or to be accurate any Lvl 3 TYPE) is in the way or not. If NOT, then the TANK (Brown) can successfully attack the HUMMER (Red) if it is in RANGE (computed RANGE was 11 Hexes).

It's as EASY as that. No trying to figure out the EXACT PATH or to break it down to smaller, tighter hexes... This is an APPROXIMATION METHOD I am offering you... Something that is EASIER to figure out and requires less GEOMETRY than what you are proposing (in the breakdown of the PATH).

If there WAS a TANK in that PARALLELOGRAM, it would be HIT by the ATTACK of the HUMMER instead and would suffer damage. Here's where this METHOD is of GREAT VALUE: does it need to be a 100% Damage if it was NOT the primary TARGET??? Maybe not. Maybe you have some kind of DICE ROLL which determines (D10) 0% to 90% the amount of damage to the BLOCKING target.

Or maybe it's more deterministic and it's some kind of COMPUTATION (or formulae) like you like to do... I'm sure you could design some kind of APPROXIMATION of DAMAGES as it is not the primary TARGET.

Again, it involves CHANGING your thinking just a bit. Kind of like the OPPOSITE you were thinking: "NOTHING in the Parallelogram BLOCKS." To think instead: "EVERYTHING in the Parallelogram BLOCKS." But it's about RANGE and TYPE...

Please let me know what you think... Cheers!

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Some additional thoughts

If you have some kind of TYPE that is determined by the TYPE of unit... Like say you have a "Missile Launcher Trooper". On the ATTACK, he is of TYPE Lvl 3. But on the DEFENCE, he is of TYPE Lvl 1. This means that there could be some variation of units based on ATTACK-TYPES.

Something like that can ADD an additional LAYER ... And make it more reasonable to use the approximation. While the "Missile Launcher Trooper" may have the correct RANGE, he CANNOT "Block" a TANK's ATTACK of the Hummer. But the TROOPER CAN ATTACK the TANK (given the correct RANGE) due to his TYPE of ATTACK-WEAPON (a Lvl 3 TYPE).

Just adding something to the REALITY of the ATTACK.

Again I hope you understand all of this... To me it seems fairly simple. But I know it's sometimes HARD to understand ... Let me know if you have questions that I may have to answer...

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
When I say "I think I solved it" lol

questccg wrote:
X3M wrote:
Let me know if this was understandable.

Very understandable for sure. That 4th image definitely explains the concept better ... But...

X3M wrote:
Let me know what you think about this method, can it still be improved?

I'm thinking that it feels "just a bit complex". Just a quick comment to the distances in that 4th image:

Ok, so here goes.

questccg wrote:

The Brown to Red RANGE is about 11 hexes away. The Red to Green RANGE is about 10 hexes away. And the Green to Brown RANGE is about 13 hexes away.
not about, it is exactly that much hexes. You can walk the path too. Which is something players observe first.

questccg wrote:

Why is this important. Well taking the Brown-to-Red and going South-East 4 hexes and then 7 hexes South, that is 11 hexes. The RANGE is the same as in your example (image). So establishing RANGE FIRST is the KEY. Why? Because you need to see if the target is within RANGE FIRST. And then worry about OBSTACLES NEXT.
Dude, we where past this point already. Once it is determined, obstruction is being observed.

questccg wrote:

As I explained earlier (in my previous comment), you don't need to do all that fancy GEOMETRY. I can get 13 hexes just from the hexes without the need of a parallelogram. So I know the RANGE.
This topic is about knowing the obstacles, not the range.

questccg wrote:

The NEXT important factor is: "Can anyone BLOCK me???" And that means given the TYPE of units, you can figure out if there is a target in the way or not. Here's where the GENIUS comes into play. Assume the OPPOSITE of what you were thinking: "Anything IN THE PARALLELOGRAM is IGNORED." And go with "Anything IN THE PARALLELOGRAM BLOCKS the attack." Just be patient and I'll come to the reasoning soon...

Then for each unit INSIDE the parallelogram compare TYPES. If the ATTACKING unit is of greater "type", ignore that unit inside. Keep doing this until you reach the DEFENDER.

Do you see how EASY this is??? At a GLANCE after some familiarity, you'll easily know if ANYTHING Blocks the attack and therefore gets hit INSTEAD of the TARGET.

I'm going to show you how I computed the distances MUCH EASIER (the CYAN PATHS):

That's easy to do. NEXT: you don't have to approximate the PATH like you did with the YELLOW lines. You simply ASSUME that EVERYTHING in the CYAN parallelogram (I have drawn both sides for 2 attackers) will BLOCK the attack. This is an ASSUMPTION. I know it's hard to do because the parallelogram is wider in the "Brown-to-Red" ATTACK. But it's easy to see if ANYTHING is blocking. And that's where the TYPE comes into play.

The cyan path, this is something you should have done before considering the topic.
In regards to ignoring other units. All units are ignored like in RTS. Except those with a certain attribute. I already had this. But the topic is especially about the terrain itself. Either way, if the sides of a parallellogram are obstacles, while the middle is obviously clear. Then getting to those yellow lines is much, much better. The yellow lines are 99% digital to the rope (analog) method.

questccg wrote:

It's as EASY as that. No trying to figure out the EXACT PATH or to break it down to smaller, tighter hexes... This is an APPROXIMATION METHOD I am offering you... Something that is EASIER to figure out and requires less GEOMETRY than what you are proposing (in the breakdown of the PATH).
Here is the difference between our methods.
I put pawns on the corners of the 12 directions parallellogram as reference.
You put pawns on the corners of the 6 directions parallellogram as reference.
I determine the middle of each bar and consider the exact same ammount of possible obstructions that equal the range.
You look at all possible obstructions just like how I proposed earlier in the topic.
In both ways, the players need to check all possible obstructions. The big parallellogram simply has a lot to cover. Which would create that star/flower like efficiency by location. The units attacks would more or less be more like a rook than a bishop. I am very focussed on seeing if an advanced bishop is possible.
Honestly, I think that considering a bigger field actually creates more down time. Not only because more obstruction needs to be considered. But also, because more obstruction would take place and the units would do less damage that way.

questccg wrote:

If there WAS a TANK in that PARALLELOGRAM, it would be HIT by the ATTACK of the HUMMER instead and would suffer damage. Here's where this METHOD is of GREAT VALUE: does it need to be a 100% Damage if it was NOT the primary TARGET??? Maybe not. Maybe you have some kind of DICE ROLL which determines (D10) 10% to 100% the amount of damage to the BLOCKING target.
That, my friend. Is a reason for players to not try to target something far away. And if something is closer by and going to block anyway, might as well try to target that with 100%. Especially if the units would create the obstruction.

questccg wrote:

Or maybe it's more deterministic and it's some kind of COMPUTATION (or formulae) like you like to do... I'm sure you could design some kind of APPROXIMATION of DAMAGES as it is not the primary TARGET.

This is the current system for obstruction:
Based on rolling 5 or less for every obstruction point.
Of course higher obstruction with many rolls can be collapsed to a simpler roll.

Obstruction points - Roll to keep the hit
0- No roll
1- 5 or less
2- 4 or less
3- 5 or less, then 4 or less
4- 3 or less
5- 5 or less, then 3 or less
6- 2 or less
7- 5 or less, then 2 or less
8- 4 or less, then 2 or less
9- 5 or less, then 4 or less, then 2 or less
10- 1
11- 5 or less, then 1 or less
etc.

I hope it is obvious that players don't bother when the obstruction is high?
Except for some special attributes... fear the attributes.

questccg wrote:

Again, it involves CHANGING your thinking just a bit. Kind of like the OPPOSITE you were thinking: "NOTHING in the Parallelogram BLOCKS." To think instead: "EVERYTHING in the Parallelogram BLOCKS." But it's about RANGE and TYPE...

Please let me know what you think... Cheers!


My thought was to see, what is the easiest and fairest consideration of the hexagons that are part of the possible obstruction. If I thought that nothing in the parallellogram is blocking, then I would not have this topic. If you are talking about the corners, then yeah, it would be weird. Acceptable if I consider all hexagons in the parallellogram, but weird.

Range, was already determined prior. I have no idea where you thought that I was trying to figure this out.

The types are the terrain. Big boulder terrain give 6 obstruction points. All other types of terrain are less.
Units and buildings that block will be having this attribute. It is a special case. Believe me that bells will be ringing if those are used.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I guess I misunderstood what you wanted to do with the ROPE!

X3M wrote:
...Either way, if the sides of a parallelogram are obstacles, while the middle is obviously clear. Then getting to those yellow lines is much, much better. The yellow lines are 99% digital to the rope (analog) method.

IMHO the yellow lines are great APPROXIMATION for Video Games and a device like some kind of Cellular Phone App which computes the paths for the player. Anything else... Is very complicated. I feel that it is too complicated for an ANALOG game.

X3M wrote:
That, my friend. Is a reason for players to not try to target something far away. And if something is closer by and going to block anyway, might as well try to target that with 100%. Especially if the units would create the obstruction.

Agreed... If something is in the WAY... Better to attack it FIRST rather than target something that is further in range.

X3M wrote:
My thought was to see, what is the easiest and fairest consideration of the hexagons that are part of the possible obstruction. If I thought that nothing in the parallelogram is blocking, then I would not have this topic. If you are talking about the corners, then yeah, it would be weird. Acceptable if I consider all hexagons in the parallelogram, but weird.

I thought we were talking about "figuring out what units can attack and what units can be blocked". That's why I have talked about RANGE first and the later focusing on the parallelogram.

Like I said, if it's a question of terrain... The concept needs to be re-visited. My thoughts were on using the ROPE to determine if a TARGET can or cannot be ATTACKED.

X3M wrote:
Range, was already determined prior. I have no idea where you thought that I was trying to figure this out.

The types are the terrain. Big boulder terrain give 6 obstruction points. All other types of terrain are less.
Units and buildings that block will be having this attribute. It is a special case. Believe me that bells will be ringing if those are used.

IDK about "terrain". Maybe using "Levels" for Terrain is an option. Some kind of APPROXIMATION mechanic. But I thought that you wanted to REMOVE the ROPE to compute PLAUSIBLE "Attack Targets" and not how terrain is an obstruction.

Sorry I tried to help as best as I could. I guess you are 10 steps ahead and I am 12 steps behind. My "thoughts" were to determine an EASY method by which to determine OBSTACLES and ATTACK TARGETS given a RANGE and a TYPE of ATTACK versus a TYPE of DEFENCE.

I never thought the topic was about "terrain". In any case, I've offered what I could come up with... I'll leave it be and see if ANYONE else has any ideas or comments.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
questccg wrote:Sorry I tried

questccg wrote:
Sorry I tried to help as best as I could. I guess you are 10 steps ahead and I am 12 steps behind. My "thoughts" were to determine an EASY method by which to determine OBSTACLES and ATTACK TARGETS given a RANGE and a TYPE of ATTACK versus a TYPE of DEFENCE.

No no, we will get there.
And yes, I am often steps ahead. And my explanation might be behind. Far, far behind. So I was already thinking that my explanation was wrong.

questccg wrote:

I never thought the topic was about "terrain". In any case, I've offered what I could come up with... I'll leave it be and see if ANYONE else has any ideas or comments.
Well, you can always post a better idea.

The goal is:
See if there is terrain blocking the vison between attacker and target.
WITHOUT the rope.

Using one of the parallellograms are still valid options. Because their have an easy part and a difficult part on their own. It is as how you said, how things are viewed.

My cousin likes the example with the yellow lines. But he is university.
The rope is obviously for kids of 8 years old. But they will be fighting when something isn't clear enough.

Does it comfort you to know?
- That the issue with the rope begins at range 6 already.
- And with the parallellogram methods, yours (previously mine) and mine. Cover till infinity.
- Yet the normal ranges are to 6. 7, 8 and 9 are rare. 10 or more is almost like an event.
- Nuke's, space laser control, "summoning" are all around a range of 18 and have a set of attributes to remove obstruction points. A super weapon has some down time. But makes up for it with a destructive force.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Terrain is more "tricky" TBH

Why? Well it's not so much about the ROPE... It's about the SLOPE. Like IF you are on the bottom of a MOUNTAIN going up in front of you... The slope indicates that IF you look UPWARDS, you CAN attack someone even on the VERY TOP of that "Mountain" because the SLOPE is ONLY UPWARDS.

But if at some point the TERRAIN DROPS and then you have an ANGLE DOWNWARDS, all units BELOW the "dropping point" are safe from all ATTACKS except for the ones on the pinnacle.

However this EXCLUDES the possibility of Rock-Formations which can be natural barriers on the Upward Slope. It doesn't mean that the terrain is uniformly FLAT as a surface. It can have rocks and boulders or even the shape of the terrain (jaggies) and such.

I think an adaptation of the Parallelogram Method might work. But it has to be about LEVELS TBH. You need something RELATIVE to the ATTACKER. Like IF the terrain ONLY increases (+1, +2, +3, +4, etc.) then the only limitation is the RANGE.

Otherwise if there is a DROP in Levels... (+1, +2, +3, +2, +1, etc.) then you know that the DELTA is +1 or higher... Meaning all units below the pinnacle (+3) are safe from an attack FROM THAT ANGLE.

And I too have a University Degree in Computer Science. But a lot has changes since I went to school. Heck things have changed in the last 10 years ... Flash was EVERYWHERE on websites... I learnt it for my Quest website. And now the Plugin isn't even supported by modern Browsers. Which sucks because I have made animations for the Quest website which are no longer supported (Gameplay Demo and Sample Card animation - Carrousel).

But that's a digression.

It's got to be about LEVELS and a DROP +3 to +2 or +1 (more of dramatic of a drop).

As far as the Yellow line is concerned ... It may be a good "approximation" but it is BETWEEN "Hexes"... Meaning that the PATH is not along the faces but in-between them. That also is a mistake. Because to plot a trajectory requires you to move ON Hexes not in-between.

Again I think that TERRAIN computations are too complicated. It's got to do with SLOPE and DELTAs and is not at all simple even IF you use one of the Parallelogram methods.

That's all I can say about this matter. (For now at least) If I come up with other ideas, I will let you know.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
This may sound stupid but it is very TRUE

During WWII when the American Tanks were attacking the German Army... The used a hill to drive their Tanks UP THE HILL to the TOP and shoot the German Units below and then would REVERSE and go DOWN THE HILL sufficiently enough that the Germans could NOT attack the American Tanks.

Of course there were numerous victorious attacks against the German Army... But this one is well documented in that the Americans had a Tactical Terrain advantage in using the HILL by climbing up and shooting down, whereas the Germans were stuck being in an inferior position at the bottom of the hill and only being able to LOOK and TARGET the pinnacle of the hill.

And the American Tanks would drive up to the pinnacle and shoot the Germans below and then RETREAT back below the pinnacle of the hill such that the Germans could only attack the HILL (or Ground if you prefer).

Anyways this is TRUE to WWII and would be 100% applicable in your ROPE calculations (determinations).

Just an aside.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
questccg wrote:Why? Well

questccg wrote:
Why? Well it's not so much about the ROPE... It's about the SLOPE. Like IF you are on the bottom of a MOUNTAIN going up in front of you... The slope indicates that IF you look UPWARDS, you CAN attack someone even on the VERY TOP of that "Mountain" because the SLOPE is ONLY UPWARDS.

We got that one covered with simple rules.
And the attributes work simple in that regard as well.

Going up, ok. But the difference in height will reduce the chance to hit in a linear fashion. 6 means you can't shoot upwards. Also, the range gets reduced by 1 for every difference in height.

(We did had a rule that you could only attack the edge of the next elevation. But that didn't work for any player)

questccg wrote:

But if at some point the TERRAIN DROPS and then you have an ANGLE DOWNWARDS, all units BELOW the "dropping point" are safe from all ATTACKS except for the ones on the pinnacle.
Artillery and "X-ray" weaponry can to a certain degree.

questccg wrote:

However this EXCLUDES the possibility of Rock-Formations which can be natural barriers on the Upward Slope. It doesn't mean that the terrain is uniformly FLAT as a surface. It can have rocks and boulders or even the shape of the terrain (jaggies) and such.
Yes, there is a clear difference in what a "flat" terrain has as obstruction. And the true 3D effects.

questccg wrote:

I think an adaptation of the Parallelogram Method might work. But it has to be about LEVELS TBH. You need something RELATIVE to the ATTACKER. Like IF the terrain ONLY increases (+1, +2, +3, +4, etc.) then the only limitation is the RANGE.

Otherwise if there is a DROP in Levels... (+1, +2, +3, +2, +1, etc.) then you know that the DELTA is +1 or higher... Meaning all units below the pinnacle (+3) are safe from an attack FROM THAT ANGLE.

It's got to be about LEVELS and a DROP +3 to +2 or +1 (more of dramatic of a drop).


Not sure what you mean here. Are you still talking about the height?

questccg wrote:

As far as the Yellow line is concerned ... It may be a good "approximation" but it is BETWEEN "Hexes"... Meaning that the PATH is not along the faces but in-between them. That also is a mistake. Because to plot a trajectory requires you to move ON Hexes not in-between.

The rope method would go to a corner of such hex. It was already counted partly. See it as a glob that is resting. The sides are lower, thus less obstruction. So the idea is that right in between 2 hexes, both hex count for 50%. If 2 hexes are both forest. Then the forest continues in between if you will. Wether I used the rope or the yellow line method, the result are the same. The difference is, the yellow line is determined in a "digital" way. So all the doubt should be gone in some particular situations.

questccg wrote:

Again I think that TERRAIN computations are too complicated. It's got to do with SLOPE and DELTAs and is not at all simple even IF you use one of the Parallelogram methods.
Going up is a one time event. If a player see's this, the rules immediately change.
Range - Delta = new range
Roll (6 - Delta) or less for a hit

Behind the "delta", no vision at all.
The obstruction is really for the flatter terrain.
Although, the layer of snow on top of that 5 height is an excellent joke.

questccg wrote:

That's all I can say about this matter. (For now at least) If I come up with other ideas, I will let you know.
ok.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
questccg wrote:During WWII

questccg wrote:
During WWII when the American Tanks were attacking the German Army... The used a hill to drive their Tanks UP THE HILL to the TOP and shoot the German Units below and then would REVERSE and go DOWN THE HILL sufficiently enough that the Germans could NOT attack the American Tanks.

Of course there were numerous victorious attacks against the German Army... But this one is well documented in that the Americans had a Tactical Terrain advantage in using the HILL by climbing up and shooting down, whereas the Germans were stuck being in an inferior position at the bottom of the hill and only being able to LOOK and TARGET the pinnacle of the hill.

And the American Tanks would drive up to the pinnacle and shoot the Germans below and then RETREAT back below the pinnacle of the hill such that the Germans could only attack the HILL (or Ground if you prefer).

Anyways this is TRUE to WWII and would be 100% applicable in your ROPE calculations (determinations).

Just an aside.


That tactic has been used.
We also use a certain mafia tactic, called "drive by shooting"

Another one, is placing artillery inside a crater. It can't be shot, yet can shoot others.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Some adjustments

Instead of bar, i should have said range.

determining trajectory wrote:
- Determine the other 2 corners of the parallellogram. Place pawns for reference.
- Every hex in and on this parallellogram are used for determining the middle line.
- For each range from the attacker, determine the middle.
- At an odd number of hexes for that range. There is one hex that gives obstruction points.
- At an even number of hexes for that range. There are 2 hexes that give 50% obstruction points each.
- When the total contains a half obstruction point. Use a die to determine if it is rounded upwards or downwards.

To know if you considered all middle's. This equals the predetermined range.

***

Maybe this can be rewritten to make it more understandable. Perhaps, a better example being drawn as well?

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut