If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the
FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to
register or
login before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
| 25 FEB 2004 at 1:53am |
Wolftrap4Centurion
Posts : 202
Joined: 4 MAY 2003
Status : Online | a lot of the newer wargames don't use hex grids. Some games will allow you to turn on the hex grind and probably those who do use the grids for visual confirmation of range.
|
| 25 FEB 2004 at 5:03am |
mr_clarkCenturion
Posts : 46
Joined: 2 MAY 2003
Status : Online | Well, I guess Hexes are quite good if you have to move from field to field...
I mean, you surely may use squares but there you only have four attached fields and so on.
At least that´s what I think [8|]
"... to give consistency to our ideas, we must take the earth as it is, examine its different parts with minuteness, and, by induction, judge the future from what at present exists"
Buffon, Natural History; 1749
|
| 25 FEB 2004 at 5:48am |
MikiCenturion
Posts : 111
Joined: 14 FEB 2004
Status : Online | Hexes have more conexions with neighbour 'areas' than other patterns. I recall a wargames company (International Team?) wich used an original grid made of both squares and octagons.
|
| 25 FEB 2004 at 6:37am |
BelisariusCenturion
Posts : 77
Joined: 31 JUL 2003
Status : Online | If you mean why use hexagonal patterns instead of other ones, the answer has already been given; most contact with neighboring shapes which allows for more flexibility while still using a symmetric pattern.
Why grids at all? That's inherited from the board games. Many gamers are used to play with grids and all the gaming style, rules and techniques that comes with it. Computer games allow them to play that way while getting rid of all the micromanagement of keeping track of distance, movement, penalties, calculations etc.
Ofcourse, a computer doesn't need this at all to make a game playable, and sure hex-less games are common, but I like both.
|
| 25 FEB 2004 at 12:07pm |
mickCenturion
Posts : 523
Joined: 29 APR 2001
Status : Online | Counting the corner vertices, squares have more connections with neighboring squares than hexagons do. Trouble is, according to the Pythagorean theorem [a²+b²=c²], diagonal movement from sq. to sq. is 1.4 units of measure as opposed to 1 unit in horizontal or vertical movement on a square grid. Hexes offer the advantage that movement in any direction is 1 unit of game scale.
[img]http://home.earthlink.net/~mcconmy/thumb.gif[/img] The moving finger, having writ, moves on.
|
| 25 FEB 2004 at 2:44pm |
BelisariusCenturion
Posts : 77
Joined: 31 JUL 2003
Status : Online | ORIGINAL: mick
Counting the corner vertices, squares have more connections with neighboring squares than hexagons do. Trouble is, according to the Pythagorean theorem [a²+b²=c²], diagonal movement from sq. to sq. is 1.4 units of measure as opposed to 1 unit in horizontal or vertical movement on a square grid. Hexes offer the advantage that movement in any direction is 1 unit of game scale.
And I thought [i]my[/i] post was redundant. [:'(]
|
| 25 FEB 2004 at 3:35pm |
NL_OxcartCommander
Posts : 1069
Joined: 17 MAY 2001
Status : Online | As already said, you want to be able to go in as many directions as possible without 1 move in any one of those directions taking you a greater distance than any other.
That is why an equilateral hexagon is preferable to a square, which is preferable to an equilateral triangle.
When you get higher than a hexagon, identical polygons don't pack together without holes in between. And if there are holes between, 1) you are going a different distance between two base polygons than you are between a base polygon and a whole-filler-shape, and 2) all of your tiles are not identical any more.
With an octagon, for example, you get this:
[image]http://www.alistairmackintosh.co.uk/Media/images/Terracotta%20Octagons.JPG[/image]
The problem gets worse as you go through n-gons, all the way up to circles.
[image]http://www.loisterms.com/polyname.gif[/image]
Of course, you could play in 3 dimensions, or 11 dimensions, or 26 dimensions rather than 2 dimensions, in which case the packing gets really, er, interesting
How's that for redundancy?
[img]http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeo5p1s/pessimism.jpg[/img]
|
| 25 FEB 2004 at 5:41pm |
BelisariusCenturion
Posts : 77
Joined: 31 JUL 2003
Status : Online | Even more redundant:
If you look at a football (soccer kind), you'll see that it's made up of hexagonal patches with pentagon-shaped patches around.
|
| 25 FEB 2004 at 6:33pm |
mickCenturion
Posts : 523
Joined: 29 APR 2001
Status : Online | Recondite, maybe. Redundant, never :}
[img]http://mysite.verizon.net/vze88znd/octo.jpg[/img]
[img]http://home.earthlink.net/~mcconmy/thumb.gif[/img] The moving finger, having writ, moves on.
|
| 25 FEB 2004 at 8:36pm |
NL_OxcartCommander
Posts : 1069
Joined: 17 MAY 2001
Status : Online | That would make such a great map. It could be called, "kitchen." I would hide my AT guns in the stove every time, and have my mortars hiding safely behind the fridge.
What's that blood doing on the floor?
[image]http://dg026.k12.sd.us/mopping_woman.jpg[/image]
[img]http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeo5p1s/pessimism.jpg[/img]
|
| 25 FEB 2004 at 9:41pm |
LongBladeGeneral
Posts : 20586
Joined: 2 MAY 2003
Status : Offline | I also think it's a combination of the previously mentioned ease to configure and the fact that hexes allow for some facing of units on a tactical scale. With infantry or artillery facing isn't critical; it's assumed they'll face correctly. But with armor the facing is critical (Tobruk comes to mind). Squares don't even come close to reflecting the ability to face 360 degrees. The hex roughly represents circular movement and it's easy to map. Presto, for tactical armored battles it became the standard. My chronology might be wrong here, but I'm guessing that games that didn't require specific unit facing probalby adopted it because it gave the illusion of a 360 degree battlefield, though it may be that the illusion came first and the concept of facing came second.
|
| 26 FEB 2004 at 1:36am |
troopieCenturion
Posts : 11
Joined: 3 MAY 2001
Status : Online | Baie Dankie alle! Thanks everyone. I had always wondered why. Now I know.
troopie
Pamwe Chete
|
| 26 FEB 2004 at 10:33am |
Les the Sarge 9-1Commander
Posts : 1262
Joined: 23 AUG 2003
Status : Online | The lowly hex is a tribute to the KISS principle.
They work.
Making something more complicated, just for the sake of hating hexes, is rather silly.
The best solution, computer games already do, they find ways to "hide" the intrusive look of the hex when possible.
It's just a tool. It's like complaining that rulers have lines marking off increments.
This account for sale.
You're just going to have to deal with conversing with me on properly administered forums. The 5% minority here is not worth it.
|
| 26 FEB 2004 at 1:43pm |
Jim H. MorenoCenturion
Posts : 13
Joined: 15 MAY 2003
Status : Online | What about it stemming from the penchant the military has for 45-degree facing movements? All that other stuff is waay too much math.
Jim H. Moreno
'Stay Alert, Stay Alive'
|
| 28 FEB 2004 at 3:56am |
Senior DrillCenturion
Posts : 127
Joined: 29 APR 2001
Status : Online | It is not a "penchant", Moreno. It is a utility that you seem to have had experience with. Remember how it goes? "Half left, Face. Front Leaning Rest Position. Move. In cadence, excersie." It got your attention then and probably still does today!
Oh, and by the way. Drop. Start knocking 'em out. []
C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre.
|
| 28 FEB 2004 at 12:35pm |
NL_OxcartCommander
Posts : 1069
Joined: 17 MAY 2001
Status : Online | By the way, I love, have loved, and will continue to love:
[image]http://home.comcast.net/~senior_drill/srdrill.jpg[/image]
It is brilliant.
[img]http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeo5p1s/pessimism.jpg[/img]
|
