Tiles / Hexes

[Hubert Cater]

With all the questions and comments relating to tiles and hexes I thought I would throw in a few screenshots displaying the various similarities and *perceived* advantages .

While there is always give and take with any new system, hopefully this can help paint a better picture.

Similarites (Frontlines):

[ April 14, 2004, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: Hubert Cater ]

[Hubert Cater]

Differences (Attack):

Primary difference here is that isometric tiles allow you to bring more units to bear on otherwise stagnant fronts, think trench warfare descriptions from SC1

[ April 14, 2004, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: Hubert Cater ]

[Hubert Cater]

Differences (Movement):

With isometric tiles, movement is now possible in 8 directions as opposed to 6, while (current plan) action points across diagonals is 2, otherwise it's 1 for regular movement from tile to tile (see move02 and move03 above)

[ April 14, 2004, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: Hubert Cater ]

[Kuniworth]

ah movement penalty. I knew there was something like that involved.

[Kuniworth]

Hubert, maybe dumb question. Are you considering that there may be too easy to punch a hole in the front in the new system? Love to hear your thoughts about this.

[Some_God]

Thanks for listening and responding to the community's questions, Hubert.

[Night]

Kuni I was just thinking the exact same thing when I saw the picture of the 5 armies attacking 1.

However note that it is because there is a turn in the line insted of it being a line where only 2 or 3 units could come to bear, in other words it's a weak spot.

[J P Wagner]

Originally posted by Night:

Kuni I was just thinking the exact same thing when I saw the picture of the 5 armies attacking 1.

However note that it is because there is a turn in the line insted of it being a line where only 2 or 3 units could come to bear, in other words it's a weak spot.

You will need to be very careful when advacing your units so you do not create these pockets...gives a whole new meaning to flank attacks.......

[Kuniworth]

Yes. ANd many weak units can maybe bring down a strong unit.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

[Couldn't find my old login-grrrr] :mad:

Well, the actual movement along the diagonal would

be equivalent to the square root of two. I've

seen some games where it is rounded to 1.5 for

simplicity's sake-other option then is to double

movement points (a tank now has 8 instead of 4

for example, and expends 2 across an edge and 3

along a diagonal) so that there aren't any

fractional movement points floating around.

I am assuming that ZOCs prevent movement through

the gaps in that one N/S frontline?

John DiFool the 2nd

[CraigRS]

I would have to agree withe two comments her. One is that this seems like it would make it easy to punch a hole in the lines and two that it will make you think about your own lines when the counter attack comes in the next turn. It seems the "Blitzkrieg" part of the title can come into play here.

Also, thanks to Hubert for taking time to read these fourms and try to address the concerns of the fans. It's easy to say you care but not many people take the time to show it.

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks!

[japinard]

Very interesting. This would seem to increase the capabilites for counter-attacking and create a much more realistic penalty for being caught in a "bulge" unless a true breakthru created. Hmmm, lots of new strategies to think about...

[KDG]

I am assuming that ZOCs prevent movement through

Hubert stated on another thread that yes, this is the case. Diagonal along a line is considered a complete line that can't be moved through.

[Friendly Fire]

Great, thanks for elaborating Hubert, this posting goes right to the heart of my initial concerns about the new design. Good job and enjoy hatching your baby!

[Exel]

As John DiFool stated, the diagonal movement penalty of 2 is too high. Whereas diagonal movement without any increased movement cost would be advantageous, a doubled movement cost makes it highly disadvantageous. Diagonal movement should take (~) 1.5 times the movement points that ordinary movement does in order for them to be equal.

Or then you could just go to hexes.

[KDG]

Have to agree. 1.5 times normal AP cost sounds right for Diagonal movement. Pretty standard for all games of this type, and fits pythagorian(sp?) theorem.

[J P Wagner]

nevermind

[ April 15, 2004, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: J P Wagner ]

[SeaMonkey]

It all works out the same, no matter how you move, diagonal, in line, in conjunction, as long as the diagonal move costs 2 APs.

[Wodin]

Hello All,

Im very happy with the new improved unit graphics.

Im sure SC2 will play like a dream. Im really,really looking forward to it.

[KDG]

It all works out the same, no matter how you move, diagonal, in line, in conjunction, as long as the diagonal move costs 2 APs.

Not quite. Lets say each square is 50 miles across and you have 4 AP's. You could move horizontally 4 squares, total of 200 miles, or you move diagonally 2 squares, a total of 141.5 miles.

Thus you need to set the cost to 1.5 AP's for diagonal moves to get the moves fairly equal in milage.

[marklavar]

I don't like the new tiles. Why not just stick with the hexes and introduce stacking? This would seem to me to be more historically realistic.

[SeaMonkey]

KDG think abstractly, this is not about specific distant measurement, its about moving from point A to point B.

[KDG]

Ahhhhhhh, your killing my brain....thinking abstractly hurts.....

OK, now that I got that out, point A and point B still wouldn't be perfect.

The distance between A and B in a horizontal or vertacle line would be greater(4 spaces away) than the distance diagonally if it takes 2 AP's to go diagonally(the equivalent of 3 spaces away). 1.5 AP's corrects this problem.

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

Hubert, maybe dumb question. Are you considering that there may be too easy to punch a hole in the front in the new system? Love to hear your thoughts about this.

I tell you what.

If it is easy punching a hole in the line, compensating rules must balance the game. Retreat rules and/or lower difference between buying vs reinforcing cost MUST be considered to hinder attacking nation from having too big advantage.

Finally, we might get the tank exploit strategies that SC missed so maybe something good come out of it.

[ April 16, 2004, 05:00 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]