4 ms·
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 all
by 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 agoI 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.