tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167571258925590870.post4704866743619456033..comments2024-03-04T19:54:23.562+01:00Comments on Wargaming Mechanics: Grids and Miniature Wargaming ... a never-ending discussionPhil Dutréhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13607941040736764291noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167571258925590870.post-72143694747684209572021-05-25T10:57:34.653+02:002021-05-25T10:57:34.653+02:00Square grids indeed have a number of advantages. T...Square grids indeed have a number of advantages. THe problem of having natural features such as rivers becoming too rectilinear can be solved by having river follow "more or less" the grid, and allow some visual leeway for a nice visual representation.Phil Dutréhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13607941040736764291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167571258925590870.post-80349102615017472782021-05-24T18:10:03.927+02:002021-05-24T18:10:03.927+02:00I'd thrown in a case for a square based grid, ...I'd thrown in a case for a square based grid, especially when depicting the linear age of warfare.<br />Where you have (or expect) a continuous frontline, hexes force units to either advance in a zigzag (which takes me back to the opening sequence of "The Monkees" when I was a youngster).<br />Alternatively adopt a crenellated frontline (OK for WW1 trenches of Roman Acies, but less representative for your Hoplites, or dark age shiendwall).<br /><br />Square grids do result in horribly angular watercourses, something that can be distorting the riverside squares to better match the river's course.SteveHolmes11https://www.blogger.com/profile/17392212343858957364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167571258925590870.post-83372641493306026032021-05-24T18:04:39.966+02:002021-05-24T18:04:39.966+02:00There's also the aesthetic, that sharp corners...There's also the aesthetic, that sharp corners (acute angles) are more intrusive when overlaid on a map.SteveHolmes11https://www.blogger.com/profile/17392212343858957364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167571258925590870.post-46484366133578161002020-08-09T16:41:18.653+02:002020-08-09T16:41:18.653+02:00Interesting stuff (btw, I am subscribed to your th...Interesting stuff (btw, I am subscribed to your thread on old wargames on BGG :-)). <br /><br />Movement on any type of grid can indeed be formulated in various ways. In modern wargaming we are very much used to a counting procedure (i.e. counting the movement cost as we move cells in the grid), but a look-up table (specifiying possible moves per plaing piece) as you describe works as well, and is more like chess. The latter is perhaps not unsurprising, since the thinking of early wargamers derived from chess-like rules and mechanisms. Phil Dutréhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13607941040736764291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167571258925590870.post-3052079656118346112020-08-04T07:35:55.020+02:002020-08-04T07:35:55.020+02:00I only saw this blog post now, but some three mont...I only saw this blog post now, but some three months before it was posted I discovered a wargame from 1817 (von Glöden's Kriegsspiel) that uses a triangular grid: https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1195045/article/28957735#28957735<br /><br />It uses small diagrams showing for each type of unit what triangles they can move to or fire to. You never count the number of triangles for any kind of range, you always just check if a triangle is marked as a valid destination relative to the unit in its diagram. It helps perhaps that there is no terrain on the board other than a river (that affects movement and requires engineers set up to cross, but I forgot the details). Looks like a reasonably playable game, except there is a huge number of units to set up, and they do not move very fast, and you are only allowed to move something like 5 units per turn, so I just imagine it will take forever to play. But the rules for how to handle movement and fire on a triangle grid looks like they might work.Pellenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167571258925590870.post-79609724656842678572018-08-06T12:51:34.411+02:002018-08-06T12:51:34.411+02:00I never looked at the Wizards's Quest map in t...I never looked at the Wizards's Quest map in that way ... but now you mention it ;-) ... there are indeed long areas running from N to S, but not as many going from E to W ...<br /><br />If you play on the points of a triangular grid, that is equivalent to playing on a hexagonal grid. I was thinking of using the triangular areas. Advantage is you have more axis to align troops along, but you get asymmetric connections (both edge-to-edge and corner-to-corner).Phil Dutréhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13607941040736764291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167571258925590870.post-71910979585920617142018-08-06T12:48:39.923+02:002018-08-06T12:48:39.923+02:00I am putting together my own thoughts on triangula...I am putting together my own thoughts on triangular grids. They do offer some advantages over rectangular and hexagon grids, but I'm afraid they will look and feel "too alien" to most wargamers.Phil Dutréhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13607941040736764291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167571258925590870.post-70091298561463108702018-07-31T08:05:18.671+02:002018-07-31T08:05:18.671+02:00Thank you for this post! A few month ago I also st...Thank you for this post! A few month ago I also started to think about triangular grids and wanted to try moving some units around it, to see how it looks and feels. But then it slipped my mind. But your post reminded me of it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15039131311737041485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167571258925590870.post-45103158042657216102018-07-27T13:57:48.232+02:002018-07-27T13:57:48.232+02:00What dividing the board up into irregular areas do...What dividing the board up into irregular areas does is to set up a specific topography. A game in point is Wizard's Quest, where the shape of the areas into which the Island of Marnon is divided creates a kind of 'grain' leading from NW to SE. Cutting across that 'grain' is the Great Tunnel' which is the only avenue of rapid movement from SW to NE. <br /><br />The game Shogun also has its topographical peculiarities. On the main Island of Honshu, is a rather long area which I regard as so strategically impostant, that if my main holding in in the area I make sure I seize it, settle and fortify it and plant as strong a static garrison as I can establish there. That allows me quick movement through the place; anyone else has to move around it and take more time.<br /><br />The field of triangles I like as being similar to hexagons if you play on the points, rather than the areas. There may be aesthetical advantages to this over the hexes, at that, and possibly game mechanics as well. For instance, some terrain could be separated from the movement lines. I'm thinking of non-navigable waterways rivers and streams, hedgerows, and other linear obstacles. Roads and rail lie along the lines to speed up movement.<br /><br />Movement along the points, though, would tend to indicate 'point' units, counters or single bases (which might carry several figures. <br /><br />The other shapes would, i think, take a fair bit of getting used to, especially determining range. Counting the ranges might not be so easy.<br />Archduke Piccolohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15533325665451889661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167571258925590870.post-33084455758267040892018-07-27T11:36:30.182+02:002018-07-27T11:36:30.182+02:00Norm, I do agree. The hexgrid is so well-known tha...Norm, I do agree. The hexgrid is so well-known that is often not questioned. Actually, some people go as far as claiming that "if it doesn;t have hexes, it's not a proper (board) wargame". I don;t agree with such a dogmatic statement, because there are plenty of good games that use area-movement or point-to-point movement.<br /><br />Although irregular grids are probably not very feasible for miniature wargaming, it doesn't harm thinking about the concept. As in any good research, exploring even unfavourable alternatives might provide a better understanding of why current practices are the better solution.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I am still intrigued about the possibilities of a triangular grid :-)Phil Dutréhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13607941040736764291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167571258925590870.post-86247940110423775112018-07-26T20:01:04.326+02:002018-07-26T20:01:04.326+02:00Good read Phil. The hex has worked in the boardgam...Good read Phil. The hex has worked in the boardgaming industry for almost 60 years and with good reason :-)<br /><br />As someone who is rather partial to WWII tactical, I like the hex because it gives me fire arcs, establishes armour facings (front / flank / rear), it is easy to count out hexes for range and the uniform pattern allows us to say 'that is a woods' hex, whereas irregular shapes need to be formed by the shape of the wood and other geography and not just be an irregular shape for its own sake.<br /><br />But you know, perhaps the real reason why I like the hex is that it is just so familiar to me and there is a second nature relationship between my brain, eye and the hex, I can so easily read the battlefield in terms of hexes.<br /><br />As an aside, I think squares exist because they are easily drawn by gamers, rather than the difficulties of keeping a hex uniformed in size, orientation and axis as one draws it across the board with a felt pen and ruler …. thank you Hexon :-)<br />Normhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05031444717952755557noreply@blogger.com