In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message


pkpowers -> In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/18/2020 2:02:52 PM)

discuss




ncc1701e -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/18/2020 2:14:59 PM)

Could you please show me an octagon map?




76mm -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/18/2020 2:24:21 PM)

ho hum... see https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/54027/why-dont-we-use-octogonal-maps-instead-of-hexagonal-maps




ncc1701e -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/18/2020 2:27:27 PM)

Well, I prefer hexagons then for the quest of regularity. Or no hexagons at all, see Command Ops 2.




TulliusDetritus -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/18/2020 2:40:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

Could you please show me an octagon map?


Think about cardinal directions.

Hexagon: N - NE - SE - S - SW - NW
Octogon: N - NE - E - SE - S - SW - W - NW

You get east and west.

[image]local://upfiles/11562/7335DB3097374A0DBD01E876C8743662.jpg[/image]




ncc1701e -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/18/2020 2:51:15 PM)

Yes thanks, so how do you setup a map with this type of grid?




MrsWargamer -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/18/2020 2:52:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


quote:

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

Could you please show me an octagon map?


Think about cardinal directions.

Hexagon: N - NE - SE - S - SW - NW
Octogon: N - NE - E - SE - S - SW - W - NW

You get east and west.

[image]local://upfiles/11562/7335DB3097374A0DBD01E876C8743662.jpg[/image]


Functional, but artistically limited.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/18/2020 2:57:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


quote:

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

Could you please show me an octagon map?


Think about cardinal directions.

Hexagon: N - NE - SE - S - SW - NW
Octogon: N - NE - E - SE - S - SW - W - NW

You get east and west.

[image]local://upfiles/11562/7335DB3097374A0DBD01E876C8743662.jpg[/image]

This has no material difference from using squares. (As pointed out in the article).




TulliusDetritus -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/18/2020 3:21:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer
artistically limited.


I don't like it either.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
This has no material difference from using squares. (As pointed out in the article).


If you move N, E, S or W you end up in a square. And from here you only have 4 directions to choose (less than a hexagon: 6).




76mm -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/18/2020 3:23:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
This has no material difference from using squares. (As pointed out in the article).

Well, other than the fact that it's uglier, would require more graphics work, and, I suspect, would be more difficult to code for. Other than that looks like a great solution!




Grognerd_INC -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/18/2020 3:25:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


quote:

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

Could you please show me an octagon map?


Think about cardinal directions.

Hexagon: N - NE - SE - S - SW - NW
Octogon: N - NE - E - SE - S - SW - W - NW

You get east and west.

[image]local://upfiles/11562/7335DB3097374A0DBD01E876C8743662.jpg[/image]

This has no material difference from using squares. (As pointed out in the article).

Hey there Curtis, what do you think? Rivers along edges or down the center?




Zovs -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/18/2020 3:30:29 PM)

Yuck! Iíll stick to hexagons.




Zap -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/18/2020 3:57:48 PM)

You might be able to eliminate the spaces by making every other line smaller hexigons. Thus theoretically making the fit seamlessly together




Lobster -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/18/2020 5:34:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Yuck! Iíll stick to hexagons.


This ^^^




sanch -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/18/2020 6:04:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
...
This has no material difference from using squares. (As pointed out in the article).


Absolutely correct. Draw lines connecting the center of the little squares, and you have diamonds. And diamonds are nothing more than squares rotated 45 degrees.




MrRoadrunner -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/18/2020 7:17:26 PM)

And, "diamonds are a girls best friend"?

RR




lecrop -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/18/2020 7:27:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pkpowers

discuss

The hexagon is the polygon with the maximum number of sides that allows regular tiling. There's nothing more to speak of.




ncc1701e -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/18/2020 8:07:29 PM)

The debate is rather hexes or no hexes...




lecrop -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/18/2020 8:40:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

The debate is rather hexes or no hexes...

Nope. The debate was hexagons or octogons




ncc1701e -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/18/2020 8:41:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lecrop


quote:

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

The debate is rather hexes or no hexes...

Nope. The debate was hexagons or octogons



No debate then, hexagons win. [;)]




lecrop -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/18/2020 9:24:41 PM)

[sm=00000436.gif]




Pvt_Grunt -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/18/2020 10:54:33 PM)

I do have a weak spot for Dodecahedrons......[:'(]




GaryChildress -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/19/2020 1:01:35 AM)

Octagons would be great if they actually worked. Most of the arguments I have seen are over hex vs squares. I remember back when Sid Meier's Civilization series had square-based maps. They were a lot of fun. I wasn't a big fan of the switch to hexes for that game but hexagons seem more usual for war games. I know many wargames want to simulate things like fuel usage and distance over time accurately but is there a way to make adjustments to things like fuel usage and time so that moving from corner to corner on a square-based map can be made more accurate in those terms?




76mm -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/19/2020 2:10:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GaryChildress
...but is there a way to make adjustments to things like fuel usage and time so that moving from corner to corner on a square-based map can be made more accurate in those terms?

I'm sure you could, it is just a bit of math, but I'm not sure that players would like it when they find out that they can move their unit up-down-left-right, but that they don't have enough MP or whatever to move diagonally. I think that one of the problems with square tiles is that often game designers don't allow diagonal movement at all, which makes movement rather frustrating. Then you get weirdness with range, I suppose, as well. Your artillery can hit targets in the center of some tiles, but only those in the nearest quadrant for diagonal cells, etc. I'm not entirely sure why hexes are so much more popular than square tiles, but I know that I prefer them!

I think the real question is why so few games have gotten rid of tiles altogether, like Command Ops 2. Seems like this would be a good approach for operational games, not sure why so few have gone that way.




nicwb -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/19/2020 11:10:34 AM)

quote:

I think the real question is why so few games have gotten rid of tiles altogether, like Command Ops 2. Seems like this would be a good approach for operational games, not sure why so few have gone that way.


I would suspect that it has a lot to do with the fact that hexes and squares solve some problems for map based games. The main problem is one of distance. When you think about it very few games both electronic or board based have good mechanisms for displaying and measuring distances. Hexes solve that. Some games are more innovative - Command ops has built in measuring tools to trace distance. command Ops and games like Harpoon also have features that provide on screen displays of weapon ranges.

Hexes also help solve another issue - unit facing. In some games that can be relevant. I'd suggest hexes are better at this than squares. Hexes and squares also allow for concepts such as ZOC's by providing a defined area of effect.

Those problems can be solved in other ways games such as Command Ops, Close Combat, Harpoon and Combat mission show that but hexes are probably an easier fix with a long established history of success.




Lobster -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/19/2020 1:30:51 PM)

You ignore the little squares. But it's a nightmare to make a map on it. With a computer the problems of distance and movement can be solved without breaking your brain.




76mm -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/19/2020 4:21:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: nicwb
I would suspect that it has a lot to do with the fact that hexes and squares solve some problems for map based games. The main problem is one of distance. When you think about it very few games both electronic or board based have good mechanisms for displaying and measuring distances...Command ops has built in measuring tools to trace distance. command Ops and games like Harpoon also have features that provide on screen displays of weapon ranges.

I dunno...while I can see the utility of hexes for boardgames, as you suggest for computer games it is would not be difficult to show range in a variety of other ways (range circles, square grid overlays, etc.).

quote:

ORIGINAL: nicwb
Hexes also help solve another issue - unit facing. In some games that can be relevant. I'd suggest hexes are better at this than squares. Hexes and squares also allow for concepts such as ZOC's by providing a defined area of effect.

While I agree with your point, another oddity is that virtually no operational games deal with unit facing. Again, your point for ZoCs is valid, but hexes would seem to limit as much as they facilitate ZoCs--seems like ZoCs should depend on unit range, mobility, size, etc, while these factors are rarely (never?) used when calculating unit ZoCs.

One interesting issue with having no tiles is "terrain fidelity"--what size are the terrain elements that can be placed on the map? One pixel for individual trees? Square blocks of a set size of various terrain types? Being able to draw terrain freehand of any shape? I forget how Command Ops does it, but IIRC it is the latter approach.




nicwb -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/20/2020 12:45:45 PM)

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: nicwb
I would suspect that it has a lot to do with the fact that hexes and squares solve some problems for map based games. The main problem is one of distance. When you think about it very few games both electronic or board based have good mechanisms for displaying and measuring distances...Command ops has built in measuring tools to trace distance. command Ops and games like Harpoon also have features that provide on screen displays of weapon ranges.

I dunno...while I can see the utility of hexes for boardgames, as you suggest for computer games it is would not be difficult to show range in a variety of other ways (range circles, square grid overlays, etc.).


Agreed -some games are more innovative - but I suspect part of the issue is how easy/cost effective is it to do ? All the concepts have to be programmed and that can take time and money. A map grid system is probably cheaper and easier.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: nicwb
Hexes also help solve another issue - unit facing. In some games that can be relevant. I'd suggest hexes are better at this than squares. Hexes and squares also allow for concepts such as ZOC's by providing a defined area of effect.

While I agree with your point, another oddity is that virtually no operational games deal with unit facing. Again, your point for ZoCs is valid, but hexes would seem to limit as much as they facilitate ZoCs--seems like ZoCs should depend on unit range, mobility, size, etc, while these factors are rarely (never?) used when calculating unit ZoCs.

One interesting issue with having no tiles is "terrain fidelity"--what size are the terrain elements that can be placed on the map? One pixel for individual trees? Square blocks of a set size of various terrain types? Being able to draw terrain freehand of any shape? I forget how Command Ops does it, but IIRC it is the latter approach.


Well now that you mention it - Command Ops has a specific tool that allowed you to order the unit to face in a specific way and also allowed you to define the size of the frontage.

Terrain fidelity is a bonus but may depend upon game scale - the larger the basic unit the less easy it is to represent terrain except in more abstract terms.




Mundy -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/20/2020 1:15:10 PM)

If you've ever played the JD Webster air games, you can go 12 directions with a hex map.

Works rather smoothly.




76mm -> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? (4/20/2020 2:38:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: nicwb
Well now that you mention it - Command Ops has a specific tool that allowed you to order the unit to face in a specific way and also allowed you to define the size of the frontage.

Wow, it has been awhile since I played Command Ops...but that is a pretty cool feature.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0390625