Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message


ncc1701e -> Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/29/2018 9:04:02 PM)

This one:

[image]local://upfiles/46661/AF24D3CB9BCC4CD0BB12F0E9731391BF.jpg[/image]

Or, this one:
[image]local://upfiles/46661/45A2B166FDAD45989F744A0D16448DFA.jpg[/image]

Just asking your humble opinion. Pros? Cons? [:)]

Thanks




Lobster -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 12:32:58 AM)

It really depends on the map more than anything.




wodin -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 2:21:18 AM)

Top one...more pleasing to look at the the other.




operating -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 3:35:32 AM)

NATO counters look good in the top hex, whereas sprites might look better in the bottom hex, then again I don't have a game with anything other than the top hex. If you wanted to ask about tiles then I'd have to burn the thread..




nukkxx5058 -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 8:17:51 AM)

It's not a question of how nice it looks imo. The top one has 3 front sides. The bottom, only 2. Should have a deep tactical impact.




ncc1701e -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 8:28:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

It really depends on the map more than anything.


I agree. But still, for games that allows you to build your own map, see TOAW for example, there is a designer choice made to choose one versus the other.




ncc1701e -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 8:46:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

NATO counters look good in the top hex, whereas sprites might look better in the bottom hex, then again I don't have a game with anything other than the top hex.

My feeling is that the top one is more used than the bottom one but I may be mistaken:
. Top hex is used by Strategic Command WW2 War In Europe or by TOAW for example.
. Bottom hex is used War in the West/East/Pacific or Tigers On The Hunt for example.

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

If you wanted to ask about tiles then I'd have to burn the thread..

Please do but, for now, we have not invented anything better than hexagons... no? [:)]




ncc1701e -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 8:57:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: nukkxx

It's not a question of how nice it looks imo. The top one has 3 front sides. The bottom, only 2. Should have a deep tactical impact.


Funny, I would have said the contrary. [&:] The top one has only 2 sides going to the East:


[image]local://upfiles/46661/2EB01299CB704E9A8B5BCA400BB074D7.jpg[/image]




nukkxx5058 -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 10:21:04 AM)

Good point :-) I was attacking the north :-) [:D][:D][:D]

So it depends on the front line :-)




Yogi the Great -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 11:04:41 AM)

Looks like the same hexagon just turned [sm=00000030.gif]




Zorch -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 12:55:55 PM)

Are there any games that use Octagons? They are symmetrical.




MrsWargamer -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 1:20:47 PM)

A hex is always a hex. Just as long as it isn't a square.




ncc1701e -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 1:29:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Are there any games that use Octagons? They are symmetrical.

But, how would you made an octagon grid?




TheGrayMouser -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 1:34:38 PM)

The real question should if you prefer unit facing to be oriented on the hex spine or the flat ;)




ncc1701e -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 1:39:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: nukkxx

Good point :-) I was attacking the north :-) [:D][:D][:D]

So it depends on the front line :-)


So, in your opinion, best is to have the front line facing three sides instead of two. Right?




ncc1701e -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 1:43:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheGrayMouser

The real question should if you prefer unit facing to be oriented on the hex spine or the flat ;)

No no, the real question for me is the possibilities given for movement.




TheGrayMouser -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 2:16:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheGrayMouser

The real question should if you prefer unit facing to be oriented on the hex spine or the flat ;)

No no, the real question for me is the possibilities given for movement.


I canít imagine why this would really matter at all in a non tactical game( spine or flat unit facing would to some small degree)

I get the impression that this is geared more to strategic scale games ( the emphasis on a front line by the op)
Even so, movement is exactly the same regardless howthe hex is oriented. What am I missing?




Orm -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 3:02:16 PM)

I prefer the second one, with a straight hex side to East and West.

Although that might be because I often fight games were the majority of the action is in the East-West axis. Like most of the campaigns in WWII Europe, or Northern Africa.




Trugrit -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 3:02:25 PM)


I rate hexes the same way I rate fake cardboard counters. Useless.

Modern computer technology can do much better than a graphical faking of 20th century board games.

Iíve stated my opinion before, my post #13:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3853707





ncc1701e -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 5:15:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit


I rate hexes the same way I rate fake cardboard counters. Useless.

Modern computer technology can do much better than a graphical faking of 20th century board games.

Iíve stated my opinion before, my post #13:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3853707



I am certainly becoming old and your point is very valid. What are you proposing for map then? Just removing the hexagons?
Or a kind of overlay looking like this:
https://www.loc.gov/resource/g5701s.ict21198/?r=0.385,0.205,0.367,0.233,0

Cheers




Lobster -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 6:12:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit


I rate hexes the same way I rate fake cardboard counters. Useless.

Modern computer technology can do much better than a graphical faking of 20th century board games.

Iíve stated my opinion before, my post #13:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3853707




You need some kind of graphical representation of a unit regardless of it's size. Hence the counters. You could represent each soldier and each of his weapons or position on a crewed weapon and use pixel to pixel movement and weapons effects but the computing power needed would likely be more than current cpus could handle without the players becoming tired of waiting for results unless it were a tactical scale game.

So, since units would have to be represented as groups (unless you have a super computer or daisy chain some PS4s) and as such cover a much larger area than a single individual or crewed weapon you would have to have some graphical representation of the unit and the area it covered. Some games use little tanks and such but that's no different than a counter. I suppose you could do that without using counters and hexes. Perhaps an ellipse of a variable shape might work. You could position crewed weapons within the units ellipse for accuracy. But if it hasn't been done then it's not likely it will be. I imagine there's lots of ways this could be approached. I'd say it's not likely to make any/much money though. I've not seen any wargames above tactical level do anything other than little tanks/soldiers or counters.




Mobeer -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 6:21:13 PM)

Either approach can work, but I always prefer:
1) having a flat side as the front
2) moving forward\backward along a flat side

So for a game played West-East then I like the bottom version.




Kuokkanen -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 6:21:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster


quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit


I rate hexes the same way I rate fake cardboard counters. Useless.

Modern computer technology can do much better than a graphical faking of 20th century board games.

Iíve stated my opinion before, my post #13:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3853707




You need some kind of graphical representation of a unit regardless of it's size. Hence the counters. You could represent each soldier and each of his weapons or position on a crewed weapon and use pixel to pixel movement and weapons effects but the computing power needed would likely be more than current cpus could handle without the players becoming tired of waiting for results unless it were a tactical scale game.

Check this **** out




Lobster -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 6:33:54 PM)

Tactical battles. Total War. Been copied many times.




ncc1701e -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 7:02:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

You need some kind of graphical representation of a unit regardless of it's size. Hence the counters. You could represent each soldier and each of his weapons or position on a crewed weapon and use pixel to pixel movement and weapons effects but the computing power needed would likely be more than current cpus could handle without the players becoming tired of waiting for results unless it were a tactical scale game.

So, since units would have to be represented as groups (unless you have a super computer or daisy chain some PS4s) and as such cover a much larger area than a single individual or crewed weapon you would have to have some graphical representation of the unit and the area it covered. Some games use little tanks and such but that's no different than a counter. I suppose you could do that without using counters and hexes. Perhaps an ellipse of a variable shape might work. You could position crewed weapons within the units ellipse for accuracy. But if it hasn't been done then it's not likely it will be. I imagine there's lots of ways this could be approached. I'd say it's not likely to make any/much money though. I've not seen any wargames above tactical level do anything other than little tanks/soldiers or counters.


Does anyone have military map sources from the First World War where units were actually represented?
I am always seeing those NATO counters... so my view is skewed.

Same, would be interested to see a real C4I military map of our modern armies.




Michael T -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 7:03:46 PM)

I can tell you the ones I don't like are the ones that look flattened or elongated.




Trugrit -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 7:11:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e


quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit


I rate hexes the same way I rate fake cardboard counters. Useless.

Modern computer technology can do much better than a graphical faking of 20th century board games.

Iíve stated my opinion before, my post #13:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3853707



I am certainly becoming old and your point is very valid. What are you proposing for map then? Just removing the hexagons?
Or a kind of overlay looking like this:
https://www.loc.gov/resource/g5701s.ict21198/?r=0.385,0.205,0.367,0.233,0

Cheers


Yes, If you have ever seen an electric map, that is one way.

WITP-AE does a good job on the strategic level and you can turn off the hexes.

Here is a video of a battle map done with fiber optics. A computer could do a much better job.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=XbEFTrYkraY





GaryChildress -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 7:33:18 PM)

What about using squares as was done in the early Civilization games only maybe increase the movement cost of diagonal movement to 1.5 movement points (or whatever mathematical/geometrical equivalent the diagonal best equates to) instead of 1 or something?




nukkxx5058 -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 8:02:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e


quote:

ORIGINAL: nukkxx

Good point :-) I was attacking the north :-) [:D][:D][:D]

So it depends on the front line :-)


So, in your opinion, best is to have the front line facing three sides instead of two. Right?


Well, TBH I have no idea... but it's a good question :-)




E -> RE: Which hexagons do you prefer? and why? (12/30/2018 8:26:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer
A hex is always a hex. Just as long as it isn't a square.

A hex IS a hex. And a horse is a horse, of course. Of course. And no one can talk to a horse, of course (That is, of course, unless the horse is the famous...[/]).




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.320313E-02