Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? - 4/21/2020 1:40:00 AM   
ernieschwitz

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/15/2009
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

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.


Having no tiles/hexes is actually the same as having many small tiles. Somewhere you have to draw the line, no pun intended, to how much detail can be made. Those small tiles, will be the basis of that game. Call them pixels on the screen, or in theory smaller, but in the end it has to be represented by finite digits. Hence squares.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 31
RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? - 4/21/2020 2:52:19 AM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 6570
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

quote:

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.


Having no tiles/hexes is actually the same as having many small tiles. Somewhere you have to draw the line, no pun intended, to how much detail can be made. Those small tiles, will be the basis of that game. Call them pixels on the screen, or in theory smaller, but in the end it has to be represented by finite digits. Hence squares.


So you are essentially going back to squares even if the grid lines are not shown.

A pixel for a tree is too little if you also want to show bushes, fence posts/lines and such like.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to ernieschwitz)
Post #: 32
RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? - 4/21/2020 6:05:37 AM   
ernieschwitz

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/15/2009
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

So you are essentially going back to squares even if the grid lines are not shown.


Yes that is my point.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 33
RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? - 4/21/2020 12:25:01 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 3912
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

quote:

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.


Having no tiles/hexes is actually the same as having many small tiles. Somewhere you have to draw the line, no pun intended, to how much detail can be made. Those small tiles, will be the basis of that game. Call them pixels on the screen, or in theory smaller, but in the end it has to be represented by finite digits. Hence squares.


If you totally ignore distance you can use squares. Pixel to pixel is more accurate in portraying distance.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

(in reply to ernieschwitz)
Post #: 34
RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? - 4/21/2020 3:14:57 PM   
ernieschwitz

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/15/2009
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster


quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

quote:

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.


Having no tiles/hexes is actually the same as having many small tiles. Somewhere you have to draw the line, no pun intended, to how much detail can be made. Those small tiles, will be the basis of that game. Call them pixels on the screen, or in theory smaller, but in the end it has to be represented by finite digits. Hence squares.


If you totally ignore distance you can use squares. Pixel to pixel is more accurate in portraying distance.


I'd like to see an argument as to how pixel to pixel is not just another version of squares to squares?

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 35
RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? - 4/21/2020 10:08:15 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 3912
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline
As I said, distance.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

(in reply to ernieschwitz)
Post #: 36
RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? - 4/21/2020 10:41:28 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 3912
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster


quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

quote:

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.


Having no tiles/hexes is actually the same as having many small tiles. Somewhere you have to draw the line, no pun intended, to how much detail can be made. Those small tiles, will be the basis of that game. Call them pixels on the screen, or in theory smaller, but in the end it has to be represented by finite digits. Hence squares.


If you totally ignore distance you can use squares. Pixel to pixel is more accurate in portraying distance.


I'd like to see an argument as to how pixel to pixel is not just another version of squares to squares?


Omg...I just realized you are talking about the physical nature of a pixel.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lobster -- 4/21/2020 10:42:00 PM >


_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

(in reply to ernieschwitz)
Post #: 37
RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? - 4/22/2020 4:02:23 AM   
ernieschwitz

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/15/2009
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Actually it doesn't matter if i am talking the physical nature of a pixel or not. As long as computers work with finite numbers they cannot represent movement realistically, since they are all going to be squarebased. The easiest way to work with graphics is assuming they are in some sort of "grid". No grid is going to be non-finite. There is always going to be a least unit of distance. Since that is the case, any distance has to be made up of these finite distance sized shapes, in a grid. You might as well operate in squares, cause that is easiest, but regardless, you still have that finite distance. So you have to make a calculation every time you move from shape to shape to shape to shape, etc. , as to how far distance has been travelled.

As long as you do this travelling, then you have to calculate distances, rather than measure them. Try drawing it to better visualize it. The easiest way to do this is by drawing a map out of blocks, where the distance from corner to corner is the finite distance. Then travel the distance along the sides of each block until you reach your destination. Then try to go "up" the number of distances travelled up instead from your starting point, and across the number of distances travelled across. You will find that these two distances are the same. So movement along the side of individual squares ends you right back to where you are measuring square movement. Or some other shape. Point is, it is not easier meassuring because you are not using shapes that are not visible to the eye.

The shapes you showed on the picture in the last post actually shows hexagons (or psuedo hexagons, by making squares that are not alligned), and squares.

The trick to all of this is realizing there in computer programming is such a thing as finite distances. One you realize that, everything else falls into place.

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 38
RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? - 4/22/2020 5:37:36 AM   
76mm


Posts: 4110
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz
As long as computers work with finite numbers they cannot represent movement realistically...

Sorry, but I think you're being a bit...pedantic. Next you'll be telling us that according to Zeno, no movement is possible at all .

The fact is that for all practical purposes, in computer games movement based on pixel-sized (or whatever other tiny "square" you want to use) squares is indistinguishable from "realistic movement."

< Message edited by 76mm -- 4/22/2020 5:49:15 AM >

(in reply to ernieschwitz)
Post #: 39
RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? - 4/22/2020 12:41:27 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 3912
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline
So you are telling me the distance from one corner of a square to the opposite corner of a square is the same as the distance from one edge of a square to the opposite edge of a square? lmao.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

(in reply to ernieschwitz)
Post #: 40
RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? - 4/22/2020 12:58:50 PM   
ncc1701e


Posts: 3108
Joined: 10/29/2013
From: Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

So you are telling me the distance from one corner of a square to the opposite corner of a square is the same as the distance from one edge of a square to the opposite edge of a square? lmao.


Basically yes.

_____________________________

Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk:
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 41
RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? - 4/22/2020 2:06:00 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 2831
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
I find some of these expectations amusing. For wargame scale and scope, one should consider the "two echelon rule" and game results over a period of turns. For example, playing the old PanzerBlitz or Panzer Leader boardgame. Movement from A to B was based on average movement rates and not perfect, but equal for both players. Combat with a platoon-size unit counter representing a group of tanks/squads versus another unit at some range was also based on certain averages and nowhere near perfect, but again equal for both players. What "exactly" happened to one unit during one 5-minute turn was not at all a realistic simulation, but over the course of a game scenario the overall results were considered believable. In this case, the two echelons means battalion-level operations, so for wargaming WWII battalion or brigade operations over a 1-2 hour battle, those old boardgames provided some decent results as well as some enjoyable gaming. For wargaming platoon or company firefights over 10-15 minutes, not so much.

My only point is that if you want to argue down to a gnat's ass if 'any' game results for a particular unit counter during a particular turn is perfect or realistic, then you're chasing your tail. Some aggregation and averaging is necessary for movement/combat effects at a unit scale at least two echelons below whatever you're trying to wargame. Clearly, one can go to ridicules extremes in pursuit of perfection and realism, such as trying to wargame all of WWII ETO with some massive PB/PL-scale game with platoon counters, 250m hexes, and 5-minute turns. But that would be stupid. Find a scale and scope that's most appropriate, movement and combat effects that work, and overall game results that are believable. And the wargame should be playable, and enjoyable as a game. I see far too many complex and complicated games that fail on both counts.

(in reply to ncc1701e)
Post #: 42
RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? - 4/22/2020 2:40:23 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 3912
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

I find some of these expectations amusing. For wargame scale and scope, one should consider the "two echelon rule" and game results over a period of turns. For example, playing the old PanzerBlitz or Panzer Leader boardgame. Movement from A to B was based on average movement rates and not perfect, but equal for both players. Combat with a platoon-size unit counter representing a group of tanks/squads versus another unit at some range was also based on certain averages and nowhere near perfect, but again equal for both players. What "exactly" happened to one unit during one 5-minute turn was not at all a realistic simulation, but over the course of a game scenario the overall results were considered believable. In this case, the two echelons means battalion-level operations, so for wargaming WWII battalion or brigade operations over a 1-2 hour battle, those old boardgames provided some decent results as well as some enjoyable gaming. For wargaming platoon or company firefights over 10-15 minutes, not so much.

My only point is that if you want to argue down to a gnat's ass if 'any' game results for a particular unit counter during a particular turn is perfect or realistic, then you're chasing your tail. Some aggregation and averaging is necessary for movement/combat effects at a unit scale at least two echelons below whatever you're trying to wargame. Clearly, one can go to ridicules extremes in pursuit of perfection and realism, such as trying to wargame all of WWII ETO with some massive PB/PL-scale game with platoon counters, 250m hexes, and 5-minute turns. But that would be stupid. Find a scale and scope that's most appropriate, movement and combat effects that work, and overall game results that are believable. And the wargame should be playable, and enjoyable as a game. I see far too many complex and complicated games that fail on both counts.


With today's computers and simultaneous execution of all aspects it is conceivable to run a real world simulation. It would likely take more computing power than the average user has and would not be financially practical for anyone to bother with unless there is a government contract involved. However, attempting to validate any simulation against a real world historical outcome is not likely. Far too many variables when you are talking about large numbers of individual decisions and outcomes. But there have been some examples of a simulation being validated by real world outcomes. Hurtgen Forest is one of them.

Back to circle vs square. In this universe they are different. Perhaps in some alternate universe they are somehow the same. It's the same as saying a cube and a sphere are the same. It's not even worth discussing anymore.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 43
RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? - 4/22/2020 7:02:54 PM   
ernieschwitz

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/15/2009
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz
As long as computers work with finite numbers they cannot represent movement realistically...

Sorry, but I think you're being a bit...pedantic. Next you'll be telling us that according to Zeno, no movement is possible at all .

The fact is that for all practical purposes, in computer games movement based on pixel-sized (or whatever other tiny "square" you want to use) squares is indistinguishable from "realistic movement."


I dispute your "fact". But think what you will... Some people think that making a map circular is just attaching the edges to each other, first one side, then the other side, forming a torus! Why not have people who believe that they can move at distances that are equal to each other, no matter what direction they move in, on a map represented by a finite number of squares (or other shapes, hexagons).

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 44
RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? - 4/23/2020 12:04:20 AM   
76mm


Posts: 4110
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz
I dispute your "fact". But think what you will...

OK, I'll bite...please provide factual and *practical* examples of what you call unrealistic movement in say, a RTS, sim, or FPS game (ie, one which does not use standard tiles). I actually don't play many of these games, but don't recall ever reading player complaints about unrealistic movement (other than path-finding, which is a separate topic).

And I have no idea what point you are trying to make with the torus...

(in reply to ernieschwitz)
Post #: 45
RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? - 4/23/2020 12:39:35 AM   
sanch

 

Posts: 385
Joined: 10/30/2004
Status: offline
What the computer needs is a coordinate system. That is, it needs to know where units and other features are.

Many war games use hexagon-based coordinates. Games like Command Ops use (I think) an XY (2-D) or possibly an XYZ (3-D) coordinate system.

Now the ultimate game could use something like longitude and latitude for a coordinate system and to locate units, features, etc. And have a world image for the 'map'. Just imagine the Eastern Front at a scale of 10,000 (1 mm = 10 meters). Now that would be a true grognard game.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 46
RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? - 4/23/2020 4:34:27 PM   
Kuokkanen

 

Posts: 3276
Joined: 4/2/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GaryChildress

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?

In M.A.X. diagonal movement costs 1.5 times the lateral movement. Close enough and works. Similar thing in Sengoku Jidai: Shadow of Shogun.

_____________________________

You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

MekWars

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 47
RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? - 4/23/2020 4:38:28 PM   
Kuokkanen

 

Posts: 3276
Joined: 4/2/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz
I dispute your "fact". But think what you will...

OK, I'll bite...please provide factual and *practical* examples of what you call unrealistic movement in say, a RTS, sim, or FPS game (ie, one which does not use standard tiles). I actually don't play many of these games, but don't recall ever reading player complaints about unrealistic movement (other than path-finding, which is a separate topic).

AI path finding is a royal pain in Close Combat games. Though that series don't have squares nor hexes, many other RTS games do. In Command & Conquer vehicles are arranged in squares, but 1 square can have 5 infantry. That isn't the case in Total Annihilation, but it has some issues with path finding, though not as bad as in Close Combat.

< Message edited by Kuokkanen -- 4/23/2020 4:40:42 PM >


_____________________________

You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

MekWars

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 48
RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? - 4/23/2020 6:15:51 PM   
76mm


Posts: 4110
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
Yes, I understand that path-finding can have lots of issues, but those involve where a unit should move, not the act of movement itself, which is what ernieschwitz claims is so problematic.

(in reply to Kuokkanen)
Post #: 49
RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? - 4/24/2020 12:36:07 PM   
ernieschwitz

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/15/2009
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Yes, I understand that path-finding can have lots of issues, but those involve where a unit should move, not the act of movement itself, which is what ernieschwitz claims is so problematic.


What I was getting at is not that movement itself is problematic... What I was getting at is that you need to calculate diagonal distances, since they obviously are not 1 step to the side and 1 step up. If your grid is squares you can use pythagoras's formula for calculating it. But obviously you have to cut off some digits. Where you cut off your digits it is going to be your grids minimum distance. That there is a minimum distance means that there has to be a square based (in this case) grid making up your map. Hence RTS is just playing on a map with squares (or hexes).

And my original response was exactly to this "One interesting issue with having no tiles ..."

You have tiles!


(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 50
RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? - 4/24/2020 1:00:38 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 2831
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster
With today's computers and simultaneous execution of all aspects it is conceivable to run a real world simulation. It would likely take more computing power than the average user has and would not be financially practical for anyone to bother with unless there is a government contract involved. However, attempting to validate any simulation against a real world historical outcome is not likely. Far too many variables when you are talking about large numbers of individual decisions and outcomes.


Again, you can 'simulate' something down to a gnat's ass to be as realistic as possible, but it still will never be a perfect simulation for a particular unit at a particular location during a particular time-step/turn. Close enough, maybe, but never able to capture every conceivable variation. It's the overall results of the higher organization over a period of time that most matter. And still, is such a thing playable and enjoyable as a game? Back to OT, hexagons are fine for playable and enjoyable wargames.

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 51
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: In wargame maps why hexagons and not octagons? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.216