Tiles / Hexes

[Exel]

Originally posted by Lars:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Holyman:

I am one of those monsters that eats good game designs for breakfast and ****s them out in hexes.

Ouch, that's two more sharp points than squares... </font>

[Desert Dave]

One incidental thing occurred to me recently... and I mean to mostly just remind everyone that there ARE some advantages to using tiles... in those other games that allowed stacking, well, if you were using hexes, then you could STACK 2, or 3, units per hex.

For example, in Advanced 3rd Reich, one of my personal favorites... you would have "3-3s" stacked with maybe a mixture of "4-6s."

But here, with SC2-Blitzkrieg! and its clean design and "chess-like" approach,

Since there is no undue clutter on the game board (... VERY easy to gaze all around on your fast growing Empire! and know EXACTLY what your dispositions are)... well, you can still apply sufficient pressure due to the innovative tile schematic.

IOW, whereas before in the old design, you occasionally had 3 fronting hexes with 2 units each = 6 attacking units.

Now, you potentially have 6 fronting tiles of 1 unit each = 6 attacking units.

Hmmmmm. Similar WW2-GS game, same difference?

Well, almost.

Here you don't have to paw through cumbersome stacks and then go to the next one and try to keep in mind what was in those other stacks.

A "4-6" luking underneath there somewhere?

________________

OK. There will be other, unique challenges.

One challenge: as Moon & Steve have fairly and openly requested... how about some innovative solutions to what might be problematical areas?

Might not be many problems, either, but this way Hubert can take any and all suggestions into serious account and give them due consideration. :cool:

[KDG]

Now, you potentially have 6 fronting tiles of 1 unit each = 6 attacking units.

Wouldn't it be five? Six attacks requires at least one rear attack as well(rear back or rear diagonals)

A) Defender facing down. Attack from front, two front diagonals, two sides. 5 attacks.

A D A

A A A

Defender facing bottom left corner. Attack from front diagonal, two side diagonals, and two front sides. 5 attacks.

A

A D

A A A

[Exel]

Okay, I stand corrected, 5 attacks it is. Still, it feels like a bit too much at least if we assume to combat system wont fundamentally change from SC1. Remember that in European Theatre you'd have to encircle a unit to get such odds.

[KDG]

Still, it feels like a bit too much at least if we assume to combat system wont fundamentally change from SC1. Remember that in European Theatre you'd have to encircle a unit to get such odds.

The big change is that air has been reduced, thus the need for more attacks on ground units.

Hexes with stacking may have been considered, but they must have decided it looked cleaner with no stacking, thus the move to tiles and more ground attacks that way.

[Donnerwetter]

Originally posted by KDG:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Still, it feels like a bit too much at least if we assume to combat system wont fundamentally change from SC1. Remember that in European Theatre you'd have to encircle a unit to get such odds.

The big change is that air has been reduced, thus the need for more attacks on ground units.

Hexes with stacking may have been considered, but they must have decided it looked cleaner with no stacking, thus the move to tiles and more ground attacks that way. </font>

[Exel]

The only case where I would endorse stacking would be a mix of different unit types, ie. you could stack a ground unit with an air unit but not two ground units or two air units. That would solve issues like Malta and potential problems with Pacific theatre maps while still keeping the system simple.

I still refuse to accept the arguments that moving to tiles was a necessity because on a straight front you could only attack with 2:1 odds. First of all, that is actually more realistic, and secondly, there are plenty of other ways of solving the hard-breakthrough-issue than moving to tiles. Increasing the effectiveness of tanks for one, as I've already mentioned several times in this thread.

[Ron]

Excel, how is only attacking with 2:1 odds somehow more realistic? Western doctrine in WWII called for 3:1 odds in order for the attack to have a minimum chance of success. The Soviets called for a minimum of 6:1, with 10:1(!) being the ideal. And there are a lot of documented operations where this is exactly what they did.

Just curious.

Ron

[aka_tom_w]

Hi Steve

I have been reading virtually all of the posts in this forum just because I am curious.

Thanks Steve for the clarity on that issue:

" The decision to go with tiles is final, and no amount of abusing Hubert will change that."

(for the Rest of you, I am a hard Core Mac user and I LOVE wargames and there aren't so many good ones for OS X )

So the final decision on this hex vs. tile thing is NOT A BIG deal for me BUT it seams to be a REALLY BIG DEAL for some folks here.

I would like to comment and say I found CMBO (the FIRST Combat Mission game) a TRULY refreshing wargame (that ran on a Mac) that DID NOT HAVE HEXES!!!

For me this was a breakthrough and my friends (PC guys and hard core board game wargamers (since Tactics II) thought I was CRAZY! They all said Bah!!! look!! its NOT a wargame because it has NO hexes! How can it be any good!!??

BUT CMBO was GREAT and it was new and refreshing because you DID NOT SEE THE TILES OR THE Hexes! you would just see

the land forms and the units and the buildings and trees and lakes and rivers. So unless you wanted to "play" with the map editor you never needed to see the hexes or the tiles or the grid.

Now for my friends this was TOTAL CRAP because you could NOT COUNT hexes and figure out how far that tank you go up the road in your first move (I said it DID NOT matter becaue the other player would move simulateaneoulsy WHAT!!?? sacrilege!

they cried "I can't figure out how far my tank will go because there are no hexes and I can't Move FIRST??? What kind of a crappy war game is this.??

(sadly I gave up on them and had to find NEW friends on this board who were converts to the new CMBO way!)

They are of course still my real life friends but I don't bother

trying to play CMxx with them anymore.

SO what is this rant all about?

new idea is not always WRONG and what if this game (SC2) could be played like CMxx without ANY tiles or hexes showing?

is that doable? is it desirable?

Why do you need to see tiles or hexes?

is it possible to plot movement without tiles or hexes

with the game telling you (somehow) when the unit cannot move any further?

I don't know the answers to any of this but IMHO hexes are some craxy concept or idea that is hold over from board games THAT WERE SUPERIMPOSED ON THE REALITY of the map board to measure distances MOSTLY. SO why not let the computer measure ALL the distance and just say YES or NO you can go that far or you can't go that far, so all you need to see is the map, the land forms and the units?

For Me CMxx was a break through in this regard, THERE ARE NO HEXES and it is the BEST small unit tactical WWII wargame I have ever played!! Bar NONE! the game is GREAT and it works fine without hexes.

OK OK

SC2 is NOT small unit tactics it is a strategy game but why not let the game code and the programers and the computer figure out all the relationships in distance and have it so there are no visible or tiles or hexes "littering" up the map?? (maybe that is NOT doable or desirable but I am open to the possibilty of looking at it)

NOW granted, this is a radical concept because players seem to NEED tiles so badly (for what reason I DON'T know and will never understand) that there are ALL kinds of terrain mods for CMxx that put the tiles back ON the land forms so that players can superimpose their "tiled version of the distance measuring safety net" (somewhat akin to training wheels on a bicyle IMHO) BACK on to what was stunningly lovely scenary and a really nice looking map before they modified it all and messed it up with a crude vestidigial measure tool (tiles) left over from a board game when there was NO other way to measure distances. Maybe this won't work for something like SC2 on that grand scale for a strategy game but why not let the designers fool around with the idea (if it is workable and I have NO idea if it is??) that you don't need to see the tiles but they are there and all the units know where they but you the player can't see them? (sound craxy? Well it WORKED GREAT IN CMxx!!)

I admit I too would love to play a GOOD (NO make that a GREAT) grand global domination strategy game (on a MAC OS X of course) that DOES NOT have hexes or tiles showing so that all I see is the 3D isomorphic units (which I like) and the land forms and rivers lakes and oceans. I think that is doable and look forward to something cool llike that that we can maybe some day play on an OS X Mac!

(Rant Off)

if that made any sense.

-tom w

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Alexanderthe_OK ,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Thanks for those screen shots and explanation Hubert. I was so disappointed to see the change from hexes to tiles and those screen shots suggest the game isnt going to be any good at all. I really was hoping for a game with the bugs fixed and not this one which I probably wont bother buying. Hopefully there will be enough other people thinking the same as me and we'll get a SC3 with hexes

Thanks for reminding me that I missed making a very important point. It is ironic that the people arguing against tiles keep talking about how Hubert did this for no other reason than looks. Ironic because looks are exactly how some of you are judging the game. Looking at screenshots and concluding that the game won't be fun is a pretty poor way to judge a game. Especially when it is coming from a game designer who has proven to you that he can deliver something you really like.

I know that most of you don't understand how utterly disrespectful and insulting your outbursts are, but they are indeed. Hubert has done nothing to deserve such behavior and I ask that you reconsider your positions into a more "wait and see" approach instead of convincing yourselves it sucks before you've played it. And if you can't, perhaps your time might be better spent having different discussions about different games instead? The decision to go with tiles is final, and no amount of abusing Hubert will change that.

Steve </font>

[Ron]

Originally posted by Exel:

I still refuse to accept the arguments that moving to tiles was a necessity because on a straight front you could only attack with 2:1 odds. First of all, that is actually more realistic, and secondly, there are plenty of other ways of solving the hard-breakthrough-issue than moving to tiles. Increasing the effectiveness of tanks for one, as I've already mentioned several times in this thread.

No explanation of your comment Exel?

Ron

[ColumbusOHGamer]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Now that it is clear to all that SC2 will be tile based, hopefully those who disagree can be polite and respectful enough to withhold judgement until they have at least played the demo.

If I'm rude and disrespectful, will the demo get here faster to shut me up?

[Exel]

People please, stop comparing Civ3, Alpha Centauri or Combat Mission to SC. Just because they feature some other movement system than hexes doesn't make them comparable. They are totally different kind of games. You could just as well say that top-down view is better than everything else because Grand Prix Manager 2 had a top-down view. For the love of god...

Ron, I get your point, but situations where such odds occured where exceptions rather than a common rule. And such odds hardly ever appeared on grand strategic corps, let alone army level, but instead in limited tactical concentrations. Plus, in the combat system of SC 10:1 odds would mean a certain defeat for the defender, which was not nearly always the case irl. As long as SC doesn't feature morale as a potentially beneficial combat modifier, I don't believe the system can ever model realistic combat outcomes where an otherwise inferior side holds against or beats an overwhelming opponent.

[Ron]

Originally posted by Exel:

Ron, I get your point, but situations where such odds occured where exceptions rather than a common rule. And such odds hardly ever appeared on grand strategic corps, let alone army level, but instead in limited tactical concentrations. Plus, in the combat system of SC 10:1 odds would mean a certain defeat for the defender, which was not nearly always the case irl. As long as SC doesn't feature morale as a potentially beneficial combat modifier, I don't believe the system can ever model realistic combat outcomes where an otherwise inferior side holds against or beats an overwhelming opponent.

I won't belabour the point, but you are mistaken when you say such odds were the exception and only occured at the tactical level. I would suggest looking at the Eastern Front from late '43 onwards and studying some of the operations the Red Army conducted. It was certain defeat for the defender and the limiting factor in most cases in the continuing offensives was supply and not heroic defense of an inferior opponent.

Ron

[Tigleth Pilisar]

Wow! This thread is a marathon read. Looks like the juice is flowing.

I find the most compelling tile arguement the addition of 2 more directions to move. More movement = more options = more strategies = more different games.

I think this has to be coupled with Excel & KDG's proofs about movement - diagonal movement takes 3 points and adjacent movement takes 2. Otherwise, distances are distorted.

The most compelling hex arguement is really the circle arguement or the "beeshive" arguement . It sounds funny, but hexes best reflect the reality of distances and logistics.

The distance between the center of every hex to the center of every other hex is the same. And the perimeter touching each of the six hexsides is the same. Theoretically, a "unit" can be envisioned with roughly the same formation at whichever hexside it is attacking or defending from. Because distances between hexes and overlapping perimeters of hexes are equal, hexes best reflect the reality of movement distance.

By contrast a square actually only touches 4 other squares, not 8. You could argue that the squares do not have independent borders and therefore the squares that are at a diagonal do share one point with each other.

But the logical problem (at least conceptually in one's mind) is that the distance for 4 of the choices from the center of the square to the center of the adjacent square is one distance and the distance for the other 4 choices is 1.47x that distance. This is not really a problem of course, because movement points can be altered to reflect this, but mentally, many of us would like distance choices or increments to be equal (but then we are likely willing to adjust movement for terrain type anyway).

The other logical problem is that 4 of the choices share a large common square-side, and 4 of the choices (diagonals) share only one point. Its tough to imagine the reality of this game-imposed rule. Are soldiers moving on a diagonal marching single file? And are those moving on a square-side proceeding under a wide formation? And what about supply and zone of control?

For me, hexes create more realistic atmosphere. Movement is equal and hexsides are equal. But then perhaps tiles distort geography, distance and troop formation, but perhaps make for a better game because of more variations? And questions of supply and zone of control and breakthrough can be established by the programmer, and as long as they make some sense and are fun, why quibble?

I think it is our role as customers to put forward our opinion, but Hubert's role to discern which of those views matter. I'll bet he only gets 1 good idea from every 100 ideas put forth by us, but even at those odds, isn't putting forth ideas worth it? And ultimately, I think this forum is more for us (customer) than the programmer anyway - that is we learn more than the developer does.

All the best in game development, and keep up the discussions!

[pzgndr]

I think this has to be coupled with Excel & KDG's proofs about movement - diagonal movement takes 3 points and adjacent movement takes 2. Otherwise, distances are distorted.

I made one post to this thread several weeks ago agreeing with this idea. It would resolve all complaints about tiles. Click on a unit and see a circular (well, oval for our isometric map) movement radius highlighted. Simple. And the map grid can be toggled on/off if you don't want to look at it.

For the record, I'm also an old hexagon boardgamer and have grown to love and respect and cherish the hexagon. But, as Steve tried to point out, it's not the be-all end-all and games like Combat Mission and TacOps and HTTR with no hexes in sight are active on my harddrive. TOAW by contrast, with hexes, is not. Why? Gameplay. That's the bottom line.

Here's another perspective. My first "look" at SC2 was not a screenshot at all. It was a draft design document. I got fired up about all of the gameplay improvements before ever seeing a tile. I admit I was caught off guard a bit when I did see the tiles, but I accept the design decision and I'm moving forward. Others should do the same. It's just not worth fussing about.

I expect after you play several games and get into the heat of battle moving units around, fighting desperate fights on the Russian Front and elsewhere, the issue of tiles will become insignificant. There are simply too many other great features about SC2 that will captivate you and keep you coming back for "one more game." :cool:

[Retributar]

I like ' Marklavar's ' comment..this is what TOAW used...and it worked out just fine.

'marklavar' originally posted April 15, 2004 07:11 PM

-"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".

Of course in TOAW...the more units you stacked in one hex the less-effective they became per unit, what i mean by that is they lose more and more of their percentage of their hit-power as more units stack.

Stacked Units also became Fatigued more rapidly as well...so i personally prefer hexes and stacking...but am willing to give tiles the chance to prove themselves.

Also...when a stack is attacked...they will take more than their normal-regular percentage of losses per unit...so a price would be extracted on offense and defense for stacking units.

[ May 18, 2004, 03:09 AM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[Guest Sgt. Emren]

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

Really. I can't see how hexes and stacking should be "more historically realistic" than tiles and no stacking. In fact, I fail to see how any of the two even resemble history, let alone realism.

Give Battlefront credit, they have done some very innovative things in the past with CM, so I'm willing to wait and see before I pass any judgement...

[Retributar]

Whats the matter with you!. This game has one division per 50 mile front!...im sure if one really wanted too they could put 10 divisions in that 50 X 50 mile box. Why should it not be realistic?. your argument is just one of preference...and nothing else.

[Guest Sgt. Emren]

My point is that neither hexes nor tiles are realistic or historical (or stacking, for that matter). If you want to discuss mileage per division, then fine, but that is ultimately irrelevant in the hexes/tiles debate.

You cannot argue that hexes should be preferred over tiles because it's more "historical and realistic". That is also an argument of preference...and nothing else.

[Retributar]

This is a good discussion 'Sgt. Emren'...so im going to ask you...how many men were crammed into the Falaise Pocket?. How many men were at the battle of Waterloo? What happens at Stalingrad when the German lines are reduced to a pocket...how many men were in that small area?

-------------------------------------------------

-I'll start here: FALAISE POCKET-

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/70-7_17.htm

"It suddenly became apparent to the Allied commanders that the Germans in Normandy, by attacking westward toward Avranches, had pushed their heads into a noose. The bulk of their forces-two field armies amounting to more than l00,000 men-were west of a north-south line through Caen, Falaise, Argentan, Alencon, and le Mans. If the Canadians attacking from the north took Falaise and if the XV Corps attacking from the south took Alencon, thirty-five miles would separate the two Allied flanks and the Germans would be virtually surrounded."

---So in this case 100,000 German troops were virtually concentratred into a 35 X 35 mile Box/Tile!. If they couldn't STACK then what would you have them do in the game?...that they simply VAPORISE?. Yet...the majority of them managed to escape!.

-------------------------------------------------

-STALINGRAD POCKET:-

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/vaughan.html

On 22 November, the Russian pincers closed the ring near Kalach, thereby encircling Sixth Army in the land bridge between the Volga and the Don (Jukes, 1985:107). Some 250,000 German soldiers were trapped.

At STALINGRAD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad

The Axis powers lost about a quarter of their total manpower on the Eastern Front(Mine: Here at Stalingrad), and never recovered from the defeat. -Casualties:500,000 Axis (250,000 German & 250,000 German Allies).

Im going to keep looking for the actual size of this area, but i don't think this POCKET was larger than 50 X 50 miles!. If a rescue party were successful, some of these men might have been rescued. This to me...tantamounts to a sort of STACKING!.

So...according to YOU if we couldnt STACK then 90% of these forces would have immediately been written off!..."HISTORICAL-EVIDENCE" proves STACKING as VIABLE!.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/stalingrad/uranus.aspx

But as the Germans had 'CONCENTRATED'(STACKING!!!) their forces to hammer upon the city on a rather narrow front, the shape of their perimeter presented obvious possibilities.

Stalingrad was at the tip of a long salient, 25 miles deep and 40 miles wide at the base. The text-book solution would be to attack it's flanks and trap the Germans in a pocket.

-------------------------------------------------

So i only spent 15 minutes on the NET to bring this information up...i can bring up much much more...no-problem!. This shows that STACKING was REAL...and should be CONSIDERED!.

-------------------------------------------------

previously i posted > May 17, 2004 06:30 PM

"...well...so i personally prefer hexes and stacking...but am willing to give tiles the chance to prove themselves."

[ May 20, 2004, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[J P Wagner]

While I must say that there have been some interesting posts in this thread, the poor horse has been beaten into an unrecognizable pile of goo........

[Ron]

Retributar,

Correct me if I'm wrong but last I saw SC has Armies, Corps and Tank Groups, nary a Division to be found.

Ron

[Retributar]

You are correct 'Ron'...

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/BARBAROS.html

1941: 'June 22. Operation BARBAROSSA begins. Over 3 million German soldiers and 3300 tanks cross the Russian border. The Wehrmarcht (German Army) is organized into three Army Groups .

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/2941/oob.htm

-June 22, 1941

AXIS:

ARMY GROUP NORTH "Leeb"

29 Divisions including 3 Panzer Divisions and 2 Motorized

18th ARMY " Kuchler "

PANZER GRUPPE IV " Hoeppner "

16th ARMY " Busch "

LUFTWAFFE

Luftflotte I (Keller)

-------------------------------------------------

ARMY GROUP CENTRE (Bock)

49 Divisions including 9 Panzer, 6 Motorized and 1 Cav.

PANZER GRUPPE III (Hoth)

9th ARMY (Staruss)

4th ARMY (Kluge)

PANZER GRUPPE II (Guderian)

LUFTWAFFE

Luftflotte II (Kesserling)

-------------------------------------------------

ARMY GROUP SOUTH (Rundstedt)

42 Divisions including 5 Panzer and 3 Motorized

6th ARMY (Reichenau)

PANZER GRUPPE I (Kleist)

17th ARMY (Stulpnagel)

Rumanian 3rd ARMY

11th ARMY (Schobert)

Rumanian 4th ARMY

LUFTWAFFE

Luftflotte IV

-------------------------------------------------

One of the MAIN-REASONS why i brought up STACKING is to deal with a situation where you are forced to retreat,...and behind you is more of your own armies blocking your retreat-path.

What happens to you in this game...do you just DISENTIGRATE?...thats what happened in SC1. But, really that should-not happen...one should be able to retreat through your own lines...especially if the STACKING-LIMIT has not been exceeded. Here is one reason why i like using a STACKING-LIMIT.

So what exactly are we dealing with as Unit-Sizes?...3-4 Divisions per game unit?...if so...there is plenty of room to retreat another 6 - 7 Divisions through that one Unit!.

Infact...a 50 X 50 mile Tile should be able to hold 20 Divisions...though it would not ordinarily be a good idea!. Hoever for retreat puposes...there is no reason i can see that says it can't be done!.

[ May 21, 2004, 02:14 AM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

If you want to have a discussion about stacking, create another topic.

The generic Corp in SC has four (4) divisions.

You have to understand what stacking is trying to represent, which means you need to realize what the different frontages for WWII units where.

A "typical" WWII division defended an areas of about five (5) to eight (8) miles. It attacked in roughly half of that space.

With a understanding of the above, you can see why the design of SC did not include stacking.

However, as I mentioned earlier, this needs to be in a new topic if you want to discuss it.

[Ron]

I understand what you are saying Retributar, but I can't help thinking you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. SC, obviously, is a 'beer&pretzel' type of wargame, pardon the over-used cliche, not a true wargame. SC takes certain liberties, which while making it very entertaining to play, don't exactly it make it representative of history.

If Hubert was to seriously try to make SC 'more' of a wargame, he would have to revamp the whole system to make it coherent and then it really wouldn't be SC anymore. Take your example of whole 'Armies' just being 'wiped - out', well in SC we can just rebuild them and then more if necessary, no problem, depending on MPPs and other concerns/priorities of course. It works overall for the game of SC. Also in history, relatively few Armies were totally destroyed granted yet the same 'MPP' concerns were still there. The Germany Army on the eve of invading Russia stood at 3,000,000+ troops, it wiped out more Russian troops than it lost, yet Germany still fell. Once at war, Germany's troop strength steadily eroded and they never did reach their initial starting level again, even after 4 years and total mobilization! On the other hand the Russian Army made good its losses and continued to grow steadily.

Now if you look at this in perspective, you see the overriding theme is attrition. Not whether whole Armies were wiped out or not as being realistic, but if you have the resources to make good your losses and then some. That is what WWII was about and what SC captures to some extent.

Every game designer starts out with a 'design concept' which envisions the 'type' of game he wants to create. Details are good to add flavour and challenge and yes to capture some historical 'feel', yet not at the expense of the overall design. SC is fun, simple yet challenging, has a historical flavour and plays quickly IMO. Yes, there aren't retreats in SC, but does that one aspect, taken at face value very unrealistic, detract from the overall game that SC is? I don't think so because SC does very well at what it is, a simple and fun yet challenging game.

If I want more nitty-gritty detail that tries to capture a more realistic feel then I play a different game. For example for the Eastern Front, there is 'Russo-German War', a huge wargame covering the whole war. It has details upon details and tries to be very realistic, which it captures, especially the time to play - with one turn taking up to 2-3 hours to make!! An extreme yes and no doubt there are shades(and games) inbetween, but get the point.

That said if Hubert implements retreat rules in SC2, while still maintaining the virtues of SC1, then I am all for it. Same with tiles or hexes, it really isn't important apart from it complementing the gameplay itself. Time will tell...

Ron