Tiles / Hexes

[SeaMonkey]

One more time KDG forget distant measurements, draw up a bunch of squares and calculate the amount of APs it takes to get from point A to point B using different routes. APs is the basis for measurement.

[KDG]

I agree on the "A" to "B"

What I'm worried about is one unit moving from point "A" to point "B"(a horizontal move), and the opponents unit moving from point "C" to point "B"(a diagonal move).

I don't want the "C" to "B" to take 50% longer but only covering the same distance as "A" to "B"

This could make attacks and defense of certain regions unfair, reminding me of the kid game "chutes and ladders" as one player has his men show up much faster at a location(the chute) while the other player slogs along(the ladder).

The game would be screwy if you purchased new units at a city, and it took you 3 turns to get it to battle, while an opponent purchases his units at another city(same distance from the battle) and it takes him 5 turns to get to the battle.

[Cheesehead]

You can argue about the triganometry all you want. Hexes just look better. If this were not so, why do the vast majority of turn-based wargames uses hexes? Maybe I've been conditioned to hexes, but they just look better to me. There is more 'logic' to it in my mind. I will buy the game and hopefully I'll like it. I'm just a little disappointed.

[Wolfe]

I've been reading concerned posts about the new tile layout as opposed to hex-based, and I'm honestly not sure where I stand. Mostly because I'm not sure how it will play or, as KDG said, if there are some locations that will see a significant advantage from the layout.

The decision to use tiles is obviously set in stone, but how about this: What if instead of having both north-south and east-west incur a 2-move penalty, only have the east-west move incur the penalty and be subject to ZOC. This way, you would have 6 directions of movement (the two diagonals and north-south), just like you do with traditional hexes, but also have the option of east-west if you wish to incur the movement penalty. You still get 8-sided attack/move choices, but it more resembles the more familiar hex moves.

Just a thought.

- Chris

[Shaka of Carthage]

Cheesehead

Because your early wargames were boardgames and for a manual system, the hexes worked out best. Some of the earlier game design books go into some of the pros and cons of using hexes.

Todays boardgames have some excellent games that are not based on hexes. For games up thru the American Civil War (Strategy and Grand Strategy), point to point movement systems are a superior method.

Todays computer games, now have the processing power to start exploring alternative movement systems as well.

Does this mean that the tile approach in SC2 is a better method than hexes? Time will tell. But you've got to admire Mr H for looking at possible alternatives to the traditional design choices. If people never did that, then we'd all still be doing wargames with little lead soldiers and rubber bands.

[Exel]

Here I give you few (extremely crude) examples of movement with different setups for diagonal movement. The black box in the middle represents the unit, the grey squares are tiles into which it can move.

#1 - Movement to all directions costs the same:

As you see, this results in the unit being able to move to an area shaped of a square. Looks horrible plus diagonal movement is very advantageous. Not good.

#2 - Moving diagonally costs double the normal movement cost:

This is Hubert's initial choice. Diagonal movement is disadvantageous (practically disabled since it's the same as moving via two adjoining squares).

#3 - Moving diagonally costs 1½ times the normal movement cost:

Now moving diagonally actually makes sense without being advantageous compared to normal movement. The pattern is not easily predictable however, and the system makes movement calculation tricky. The tiles marked with red dots indicate squares in which the unit would still have some action points (or fractions of them) left, but not enough to move.

For comparison, here's the situation with hexes (screenie from SC1):

The movement to all directions is equal and the movement pattern is both predictable and aesthetic. Simply beautiful.

[ April 16, 2004, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Exel ]

[Exel]

Double post.

[SeaMonkey]

If you guys really want to see how an innovative wargame system works and the power that the CPU potential has to make it easy, try Panther's, "Highway to the Reich", you can thank me later.........Les are you out there?....would you like to comment?

[SeaMonkey]

Great example Exel, thanks. Now would you like to show us the dynamics of the combat comparison. Don't get me wrong here guys, I'm a hex based wargamer from the 60s, but HttR has opened my eyes to other possibilities.

[Elmo]

If the game must have tiles then at least offset the rows so movement is equal in all directions (basically square hexes ). Crude drawing:

___ ___ ___ ___ ____

I___I___I___I___I___I_

__I___I___I___I___I___I

I___I___I___I___I___I

[ April 16, 2004, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: Elmo ]

[Exel]

Originally posted by Elmo:

If the game must have tiles then at least offset the rows so movement is equal in all directions (basically square hexes ).

That would reduce the movement directions to 6, which would neglect the point in moving to tiles in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for hexes.

I wasn't sure about what to think about tiles at first, but after conducting a little experimentation of my own (results posted above) I came to the conclusion that hexes are superior to tiles in a game like this. In Civ3 tiles with equal movement cost to all directions works well, but it is an altogether different kind of game.

[Elmo]

Never mind, we're obviously stuck with tiles so no sense prolonging the debate.

[ April 16, 2004, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Elmo ]

[Exel]

One more thing that is against tiles; grid. With hexes you don't have to play with the hex grid on, since the simple and apparently somehow very natural form of a hex makes it easy to picture the grid in your head. Likewise, estimating distances is easy and there aren't any hidden gaps in the front lines. With tiles all this is different. Diagonal movement causes problems for perception and you have to keep the grid on - not doing so will greatly increase the risk of misestimation of distances and movement routes, as well as the risk of not noticing those "hidden" gaps in the front lines. In games like Civ3 where the tile system works all this is irrelevant and only a very minor nuisance, but in a game like SC where keeping a continous front is crucial it suddenly becomes a major issue. This results, at the very least, in the need to keep the grid visible at all times, which at least I would find annoying.

[KDG]

Thank you EXEL for illustrating my point that diagonal should cost 1.5 AP's to give the game its most accurate and equal movement in all directions.

Since we are going to have tiles(for many reasons listed other places) it would be best to make the most of it, which happens with the 1.5 AP diagonal cost. The decision on whether to round up or down is up to Hubert(most likely if a unit has a .5 AP left, it won't be able to move any farther).

[RobRas]

I'm still not sure as to WHY tiles were selected instead of hexes. True it will be easier to attack a given hex...sorry, tile...from more directions and yes, somtimes stalemates did happen in SC. But did it happen very often? Stalemates can obviously happen in any game - and some of the fronts in WW2 were stalemated for months. And true: Tiles make it possible to move in 8 directions from a well..tile. But is that an end in itself? I'm not against innovation and change - area movement and point-to-point movement are great additions to the movement schemes in strategy games. But using quadratic tiles seem to be to return to the old ways of Tactics and Tactics II.

[Blashy]

I like the idea mentioned about making diag cost 2AP and normal cost 1, and increasing the AP of all units, this way they are no "left overs" from diag movements.

If that will be the case, then tiles I prefer.

[SeaMonkey]

Actually I want to put forth the premise of "Perfect". In my "Perfect" all things being consistent and symmetrical, a grid system is the best choice presenting a "Perfect" circle of movement. Unfortunately "Perfect" only exists in my mind and the real world is asymmetrical and inconsistent. So no matter what system we end up with I'm just going to imagine in an abstract way that its circular and "Perfect".

[pzgndr]

The decision on whether to round up or down is up to Hubert(most likely if a unit has a .5 AP left, it won't be able to move any farther).

All very good arguments. I am also campaigning for something like this and hopefully Hubert is warming up to the idea.

We could either consider fractional AP, or double AP and MC with a +1 penalty along diagonals. So 1 to move along a grain and 1.5 across a diagonal, or 2 and 3 respectively. Either way the computer would highlight a unit's movement radius when you select it. And the radius would be more or less circular.

I see two advantages with doubling AP and MC. For AP, this gives a larger spread in movement values which could allow us to let mechanization research go to the higher levels (ie, +5 AP would be much more reasonable). For MC, this allows us to fit in some new costs for forests and swamps that are more than clear but less than mountains.

Win-win-win?

[KDG]

So 1 to move along a grain and 1.5 across a diagonal, or 2 and 3 respectively

A very good idea, doubling MC's and AP's. Solves the fraction problems immediately, while opening up additional benefits. A tank still might move 5 squares, but it now costs 10 MC's to do it, which still equals the tanks AP(10).

This makes incremental changes using the editor to AP easier. Changing an Army from 3 to 4 would have been dramatic, but changing it from 6 to 7, a lot less.

[ April 16, 2004, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

I agree with KDG, a movement cost of 2 and 3 would work out fine, as well as allowing for different terrain costs.

Not to mention, the lattitude it gives for the various weather effects on movement (assuming that is the path Mr H takes).

[Lars]

Originally posted by 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.

So I can attack along the diagonals but I can't squirt though this front on a diagonal? Is this correct?

[KDG]

Exactly, no squirting in SC2(I'm trying to keep a straight face, but, no I can't do it, I'm rolling on the floor laughing).

Seriously, the line is an effective block(until each unit gets attacked from 3 places by 2 armies and tank, along with 2 jets).

[Lars]

Since you can't move through on the diagonal, could I could surround a unit with only four units? Or will supply still get through on the diagonal?

[KDG]

I don't think so, since a unit surrounded like that could still have have one of its own units move next to it, providing supply.

I believe you need 8 for complete surrounding(not that you need it, 8 guys should be able to take out one unit).

[marklavar]

The more I think about it, the more I hate the tiles layout. I hope Hubert will rethink this decision, because it will go directly counter to the majority of wargamers' wishes. Hexes work best - it's as simple as that. Why change something that works?