Tiles / Hexes

[SeaMonkey]

I've been thinking about this some more. Even though we are willing to try out the new tile concept, it seems the legacy with hexes is hard to shrug off. Simply they work. In lieu of the grid system, which is ideal, hexes seem preferable over tiles. Now what about the combat model and the so called "frontal quagmire" problem? Remember the name of this game is Blitzkrieg. Let's take a history lesson. Operations of WW2 frontal penetrations of prepared defenses usually involved a concentrated attack by massed infantry/artillery formations, followed by the mech. forces, ...usually,and I use that term loosely. Well it seems there is a movement afoot to somehow derail the omnipotency of the air forces as being unrealistic, so thats out to complete the penetration. We don't have an artillery unit to contribute firepower to the two attacking armies that are supposed to make the penetration (in the case of hexes). So how do we accomplish it? A realistic suggestion please! Anyone,...hello? Okay SeaMonkey...what have you got? If the two attacking armies have not moved into the attacking hexes(SC1 blitz attack) isn't it reasonable to conclude they may have been making assault preparations in that immobile turn for the attack next turn. Should they be perhaps granted a combat bonus for doing so? Like an assault bonus? And perhaps if an Engineering unit or Para unit(dropped behind the lines) is in the vicinity(adjacent hex) could/should an additional combat bonus be applied to the attack of the two armies/corps. Would this finally be enough combat power to open up the defense for the blitz of the mechanized forces and break our stalemate, simulating WW2 operations? Well,... would it?

Disclaimer: in no way is this meant to imply that this type of attack should be successful in the face of a prepared defense in depth.

[JerseyJohn]

The only sqaure oriented war game I recall liking was Avalon Hill's original offering, Tactics II (there was no predecessor, the II part was their little secret). Unfortunately this is over forty years back and I don't recall much about the game except there certainly weren't any guys squirting on one another -- where the hell did that come from anyway!

Because hexes were difficult to draw on blank pages and it was easy to make a grid, as a kid I came up with a lot of homemade games using squares (tiles as we're calling them) and as everyone is saying, they were awkward, but tenable, advantages and disadvantages over hexes. But I'd like to have a better idea of how Hubert is treating this before going any further.

The arguments against tiles are all very good, but I'm sure Hubert was aware of all of them before ever making his decision.

I'd like to see the system in action.

[ April 16, 2004, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[KDG]

I believe the switch to squares is this:

1) Programming. Map can be larger, programming language being used will work better with squares.

2) Three units can now make ground attacks, instead of two. This allows Hubert to knock down the power of jets, increasing the importance of ground units, and tanks.

[ April 17, 2004, 02:35 AM: Message edited by: KDG ]

[Friendly Fire]

Yes, agree with KDG, the use of squares could actually better reflect blitz penetrations:

- air units attack and reduce entrenchment/supply

- 3 adjacent units attack one point and blow a hole in the front

- armor rushes in and cuts off defenders

we don't really see this much in SC1 unless the line is weak (like on turn 1 of Barbarossa)

one way to fix the problem with hexes would be allow unit stacking, but maybe this is a better solution. I look forward to trying it!

FF

[Exel]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

-- a grid system is the best choice presenting a "Perfect" circle of movement.

That is not true. As you can see from my example pictures, the hex layout offers the most round-like movement pattern where moving to all directions is equal. Tiles with 1.5 times penalized diagonal movement is quite round too, but it still leaves with the problem of unequal movement to all directions.

Originally posted by 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?

I completely agree with you. I can only hope we can make enough uproar to make Hubert change his mind.

[Exel]

I think a better way to fix the stale mate front situations than moving to tiles would be to increase the significance of tanks. In SC1 they weren't nothing but more mobile versions of Armies with better defence. They didn't have any "blitz features" that would have allowed them to exploit a gap if one was created. An attack-move ability together with some combat stat refinements could be all that is needed.

And remember, even in SC1 three-to-one attacks did occur, but breaking a stale mate was still difficult without extensive air support. So that obviously is not the best solution. Now, the only reason why WW2 wasn't the kind of trench warfare as WW1 was is because of the use of tanks (and well, air power). Without tanks (or with ineffective tanks like in SC1) the fronts would have become just as stagnating as in the Great War. This is how it should be in SC2 too; boost the significance of tanks.

[ April 17, 2004, 07:41 AM: Message edited by: Exel ]

[RobRas]

Another way of reducing stalemate situations would be to give bonuses to units beyond the first attacking a hex. Or even better: To introduce retreats

[Bill101]

I'm more than happy to use tiles as I don't understand the fixation with hexes.

If playtesting shows that tiles work, then tiles it is!

Tiles will have the effect of making ground war, and the use of reserves, more important, with the air war slightly less important. Isn't this historically correct?

[J P Wagner]

I think you could have achieved breakout and exploitation attacks very easily with a hex based map if stacking was allowed...something that has been mentioned before, but bears repeating here.......

[Arngrim]

I seriously dislike the squares. Hexes are a more flexible system, and works a lot better. Don't forget that there was a reason to start using them when wargames evolved from chess.

Actually, the squares means that I won't purchase the game until I have first played it myself. If I like it, fine, if not I'll just have to wait for SC Pacific /SC Total war

[Arngrim]

I just realised something: Physical movement=*1,5 diagonally, but what about spotting: will it be *1, *1,5 or *2?

I twill make spotting/hiding units _rateher_ different.

[Exel]

Originally posted by Arngrim:

I just realised something: Physical movement=*1,5 diagonally, but what about spotting: will it be *1, *1,5 or *2?

I twill make spotting/hiding units _rateher_ different.

It'd all be easier with hexes...

[Shaka of Carthage]

Its easier with hexes, because someone else has already figured out the answer to the questions.

But that doesn't mean its the superior system.

So while the "squirting" issue needs to be addressed, the AP cost for diagonal movement, etc, we have a system that appears to allow us to concentrate ground attacks without stacking. That alone, is a major concept change that takes us past what hexes allowed.

I think in this case, we should concentrate on how to make the system work, and solving problems as they are being presented to us.

[Arngrim]

Well, I think that the new system will be great, but I might continue to play SC1 because: I dislike 3d graphics hiding features or being distracting/confusing in startegic games. I like the graphics in PG, but that's as far as I go. This is mostly because the top-down view is superior in clarity. And since I feel that the squares are perfecty for chess, but obsolete in wargaming I have a very bad feeling about SC2.

Finally, _we_ shouldn't make the system work, merely providing the developer with our honest feelings about it. I hate to see good games dissolve into poor secuels with good graphics but destroyed playability.

[Leopard]

I haven't posted here much lately during my sports gaming season, but am excited about SC2. Just a quick point on the tiles vs hexes argument.

I had looked at this also while working on a war game many years ago, and feel there is a lot of merit to a tile based system. Hubert has shown a great understanding of strategic war games with SC. Despite imperfections, SC is the best game of its type.

I had planned on reducing attacks which come from a diagonal compared to a full facing tile unless both adjacent tiles were controlled by the attacker. I also planned on having a movement penalty through diagonals if the 4 adjacent tiles were not controlled by that country, the penalty greater for each tile not controlled.

I also would reccomend placing movement bonus tiles (which can be damaged) to simulate roads and railway systems. These could extend the movement range if these roads/railways are intact, and adds strategic value to tiles away from the front.

There are so many of the ideas we presented in this forum mentioned for SC2-it is such a nice feeling to think the game designers are listening and using the suggestions offered by their customers. What a concept! WWII Online would prefer to have no sales and a poor game than to listen to its customers, and failed majestically where others have succeeded. Thanks BF and Hubert.

The tile system can work if well designed, and I have faith Hubert will do it right again.

[KDG]

Guys, its starting to look like you are just repeating yourselves on the hexagon/tile debate.

1st, I'd expect movement costs to jump to 2 for horizontal/vertical, and 3 for diagonal. Then expect all units to have their AP's doubled. Thus no fractions, and the chance for a more diverse set of movements by different units.

2nd, Its been stated that a diagonal line of units will block the same way a horizontal or vertical line will.

3rd, three attacks instead of two on a defensive unit in line makes a huge difference, giving Hubert the ability to nerf jets, allowing them to support attacks in the attempt to blow a hole in the line.

4th, you are also forgetting the fact that there is a map size limitation that Hubert faced in SC1 with the hexagons. This is one of the reasons for the move to the squares.

5th, don't worry about the graphics, they can be toggled various ways, and from everything I've read here, its not Hubert working on them, thus its not costing him programming time.

6th, moving from hexagons to tiles isn't like moving to real time, or moving to spaces the size of squares(like Axis/Allies), its just one of many, many different minor enhancements, not something that changes the game into a new genre.

[Desert Dave]

So while the "squirting" issue needs to be addressed, the AP cost for diagonal movement, etc, we have a system that appears to allow us to concentrate ground attacks without stacking. That alone, is a major concept change that takes us past what hexes allowed.

Shaka, I have to agree wholeheartedly with you here.

Concentration.

WITHOUT stacking.

I prefer the "chess-like" aspect of SC, where you have one unit per tile.

You can very easily glance and see the "big picture" since you don't have all those units hidden in stacks, which you would have to take time to manipulate somehow to find out just what you have and where; and then... try to keep that firmly in mind while you proceed to examine all those other stacks. :eek:

Additionally, no need for ground support units to be rated beyond their capabilities, as with Air Fleets currently constituted.

Just two more very compelling reasons to give this new concept a fair chance.

[Skanvak]

IMO, the tiles set is simply making the game look like Civ III. I am disappointed by this choice.

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by Skanvak:

IMO, the tiles set is simply making the game look like Civ

Agreed, just my thoughts when i saw them. Looks like the whole map / units were created with the Civ II-Editor.

I am very sure that SC II would be selling better with hex-system, because we, the wargamers, expect, know and love hexes. We are not seeking fancy 3D graphics, we want playability.

The "normal" customers who don't know any real wargame won't buy this game anyway, because even the new tile-set is looking so oldfashioned compared to "Call of Duty" or "Panzers".

[ April 18, 2004, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

[John M]

A 5:7 AP ratio between a horizontal/vertical of one square and a diagonal movement of one square is pretty close to perfect. The actual number is 5:7.07168, but who's counting. If a unit is charged 5 APs for a horizontal or vertical move into a given terrain, and 7 APs for a diagonal move into the same type of terrain, the different movement costs are fairly accurately reflected. And you get all the advantages of the isometric view over the hexes.

[japinard]

How about octagons?

[Hawk]

Why not wait for the verdict from the beta testers? Yes, I know it's hard changing fundemental parts of a program that far into the process, but by the looks of the screenshots, Hubert can't easily convert to hexes now either.

If absolutely all the beta testers agree that tiles are bad for gameplay, then we would probably have a different situation.

However, I'm fairly sure that it won't happen. Hubert has spent a lot of time on SC2, and I'm pretty sure he has thought this through thoroughly!

Tiles or hexes, I for one am pretty sure that SC2 will be a very good game with next to unlimited replay value thanks to the editors!

So, anybody working on a world map yet?

Oh, and by the way, octagons won't work well I'm afraid.

Although they would create some interesting strategies...

[ April 19, 2004, 03:53 AM: Message edited by: Hawk ]

[Bill101]

Xwormwood wrote:

"I am very sure that SC II would be selling better with hex-system, because we, the wargamers, expect, know and love hexes."

Actually, I think you'll find that there is more diversity in the wargaming field than you think. Boardgamers may use hexes all the time, but in my experience table-top wargamers very rarely do.

In my club we have fought a very large number of historical campaigns over the years, and last year we fought the very first ever with a map system using hexes (bear in mind that we've been doing at least one campaign a year for the past 25 years, in all the others we have used a wide variety of maps and mapping systems).

Therefore I would suggest that one half of the wargaming community will be open to a non-hex based game. Their questions are more likely to relate to other things, such as the game's playability.

[Exel]

One more thing about tiles: they make the map look awfully blocky. Hexes make an overall nicer looking map with less angular country borders. And it's not just about esthetics, but realism too. Just look at Albania for example, and compare the screenies of SC2 (where it is a square of four tiles) to SC1.

I wouldn't like to rant about the issue so much, but I just think that hexes would have been a better choice - hopefully changing back is still an option.

[Skanvak]

I know a napoleonic game that use Octogone. Though I will have to try the CivIII WWII scenario now. To see the differences (there are no supply that Civ III downfallon the matter).