3 ms·

I remember reading an interesting article which said that hex-grids were overrated, since each hex was adjacent to only 6 spaces, whereas square-grids have 8 (i

by barbs 13y ago

I remember reading an interesting article which said that hex-grids were overrated, since each hex was adjacent to only 6 spaces, whereas square-grids have 8 (including diagonals). I just tried to dig up the article, but failed. It was a pdf, and it was his investigation into attempting to create the most balanced turn-based strategy game he could. I remember the first-player would move once, and then the second play twice to offset the first-play advantage. And the board wrapped around top-to-bottom and left-to-right. Shame I can't remember the name of it! EDIT: Found it: http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/texts/descript.pdf http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/texts/descript.pdf

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Pamar 13y ago
Sorry but this is pretty naive. The link you proposed is for a Chess variant. Now, in an abstract game like Chess, I may agree that using a square grid (and allowing diagonal moves) may be ok. In a wargame, though, or anything trying to "simulate" reality (e.g. a role playing game) using a square grid with diagonal moves will result in the "interesting" phenomena where moving your tank towards North-West would boost its speed by more than 40% (square root of 2=1.414...). And this would be even worse in case of favorable terrain like roads or plains. The reason why hexagons are favored is because they can perfectly cover a plane and at the same time you move a constant distance no matter which side you are exiting. So you should at least qualify your "overrated" statement by saying "for abstract games where speed/range of units is not considered an important feature".
- barbs 13y ago
  I didn't make the statement, the article did, and I wasn't quite sure of the details. I just thought it was interesting. You're right, of course re: moving distance on a square-grid. Re-reading the article, I'm not sure why he was so concerned about finding tessellating shapes for the playing surface. Being an abstract game, and with the goal of exploring new gameplay concepts, surely he would consider using nodes and paths instead? That would be able to represent many more configurations.

by barbs 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Pamar 13y ago

Sorry but this is pretty naive. The link you proposed is for a Chess variant. Now, in an abstract game like Chess, I may agree that using a square grid (and allowing diagonal moves) may be ok. In a wargame, though, or anything trying to "simulate" reality (e.g. a role playing game) using a square grid with diagonal moves will result in the "interesting" phenomena where moving your tank towards North-West would boost its speed by more than 40% (square root of 2=1.414...). And this would be even worse in case of favorable terrain like roads or plains. The reason why hexagons are favored is because they can perfectly cover a plane and at the same time you move a constant distance no matter which side you are exiting. So you should at least qualify your "overrated" statement by saying "for abstract games where speed/range of units is not considered an important feature".

barbs 13y ago
I didn't make the statement, the article did, and I wasn't quite sure of the details. I just thought it was interesting. You're right, of course re: moving distance on a square-grid. Re-reading the article, I'm not sure why he was so concerned about finding tessellating shapes for the playing surface. Being an abstract game, and with the goal of exploring new gameplay concepts, surely he would consider using nodes and paths instead? That would be able to represent many more configurations.