Tiles / Hexes

[Elmo]

Originally posted by Exel:

...

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.

Well perhaps Hubert will weigh in and tell us whether this thread is a waste of bandwidth or not. If it's tiles and no going back then that is that. If not then I'd certainly urge him to reconsider.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Bill 101:

Therefore I would suggest that one half of the wargaming community will be open to a non-hex based game.

At least.

Then you have to consider some of the other less "hands-on tactical" possiblities that game designers have been, and are now investigating.

Such as... area movement games.

With or without card-based "special events" for combat results and historical variations.

I can think of many area based board and computer games... that old stand-by, Axis & Allies for the quick fix, and... HoI comes to mind, but that is not typical since they are still trying to patch the Alpha version. :eek:

Anyway, at least with SC 1 or 2, you still have those fairly intricate maneuverings in ~50 mile delineations, only...with tiles instead of hexes.

Really, what difference? When you get right down to it? Other than... it's the way it always used to be?

Why not give the new approach some serious consideration?

You might find a whole lot of new possibilities. :cool:

Hexes are ingrained in many wargamers thinking mostly because they were the "standard" way of looking at the world for so very long.

Since Avalon Hill and GDW and some others did it, that makes it the ONLY way to do it?

Since THEY did it, it is necessarily the BEST way to replicate WW2 or any other conflict?

Here we have a beautifully simple "chess-like" game, which is recommended IF ONLY it removes those very cumbersome "stacks" of units.

Well, no doubt, there are good arguments on all sides of this issue, and at the least... you are not shoving ONE HUGE MEGA UNIT from one area, say, like from Ruhr to Low Countries, and having to sit back and admire just how adroitly the AI re-enacts all those small combat routines.

[Holyman]

Bit of a disappointment really...

Hexes, stacking, expanded map and the focus on strategy (as in resource controlling) was what i was looking forward to in SC2.

The thing is that a hex-strategy game on grand strategy level was the gap SC1 was filling and what also SC2 should be about. You were on the right course with SC1 it just needed to get "deeper" to be perfected. But this is a common mistake when developing games if you ask me. To overthink. If its not too late please reconcider...

sorry....

[Bill101]

Holyman, why the fixation on hexes - surely its the quality of the game that counts?

And as to stacking, well it would just make a quick and easy-to-play game far more complicated and time consuming.

Just imagine a PBEM game where your opponent does a move every 3/4 days. That means that every time you play it you'd have to remind yourself of what units were in each and every stack. Talk about boring.

And sitting waiting for your opponent to finish looking at their stacks would kill online games too.

[Holyman]

Well, Bill101:

i prefer hexes and this is based on my experience. It is really simple - i wanted a "High command 2"! In my eyes it was a brilliant game that deserved more. When i saw SC i got extatic, but in the end it lacked some features that is important to me when it comes to wargaming, so i had to wait for SC2 to get the perfect sequel (i thought..)

See now why I am disappointed? I will still have to look for MY perfect wargame and i cannot se anything else that is worth hoping for.

[KDG]

Still having trouble with the "not hexes, oh no!" crowd.

I've played hexes, tiles, areas, real time, etc. The design of the board/computer never made or broke a game. It always came down to depth of strategy, ease of play, AI, variations of the game, replayability, etc.

People that want hexes seem to want it for two reasons, the look of hexes, and the movement/combat. Any other reasons?

1) The look - On one had I hear people say, don't improve the graphics, keep them 1 dimensional, make it look like basic cardboard squares, etc., giving me the impression that the look of the game doesn't mean much. Then they say, I don't like the look of tiles. Hmmmm... somethings funny there.

2) Movement/combat - Hexes 6 directions. Tiles 8 directions. So we have greater variation with Tiles, yes? Sounds like it to me.

Besides it being what you are used to, why are hexes better than tiles? I've played great games on both type of game surfaces.

Why we are going to tiles.

We had a limited size map with hexes, and jets had to be powerful becuase you could only attack from two places on the ground.

Now we have a huge map, up to 250 X 250, and you can now bring three ground attacks into play, thus allowing jets to be nerfed.

[Exel]

Sorry KDG, but again I must jump at your comments. The pro-hex side has given more arguments for hexes and against tiles than the tile supporters have given reasons to move to tiles. Most frequent supportive arguments for tiles have been "why stick with the old hexes, let's try something new; tiles!" and "tiles have 8 movement directions, hexes only 2." First, "new" doesn't always equal "better". There is often a reason why something has become standard or traditional, and that applies to hexes - simply put, they work well. Second, the numerous advantages of hexes outweight the fact that they have 2 less movement directions than tiles do, in my opinion. I'm also sure that the problem with map size can be solved without abandoning hexes (what magical limit causes it anyway?). And finally, the "stagnating front with hexes argument"; there surely are other means of solving the issue than moving to tiles and allowing more units to attack the same target - namely increasing the importance of armored units as the breakthrough units they historically were. WW2 would have been the same trench war as WW1 if it wasn't for tanks. In SC1 tanks are subpar with their historical capabilities and by fixing that you would fix the front problem without having to move to tiles.

[ April 20, 2004, 07:19 AM: Message edited by: Exel ]

[RobRas]

In my view there are two sides to this debate:

* Are tiles or hexes best to simulate the movement and placement of units and what are the advantages/disadvantages of each. I believe that hexes are best but I can accept tiles if I have to. I don't buy the stalemate argument though. To drastically change the format of the game board in order to adjust some simple game mechanics seems odd to me. A lot of other options could have solved or reduced that problem: Increased armor effectivenes, retreat rules, stacking, extra effectiveness for each attacking unit beyond the first etc. Furthermore a stalemate is possible in any game and stalemated fronts did occur for months in WW2.

* The other discussion is the look of the game. I seriously dislike the look, I think isometric boards distorts the board making it much harder to estimate distances and placement of units. Especilly combined with all the fancy graphics of the counters and the board. Making it harder to recognize units and making it all look like some kind of diorama.

I could live with tiles if I could get the Top-Down simple graphics look as an option. I can't help but suspect that the isometric tile-based board primarily has been chosen to accomodate the new graphics engine (though I may be wrong in this). Which means that in order to get some graphics I don't want or need I have to get a game based on tiles which I don't like. Not excactly a perfect situation

But no biggie - it's just a game. I'll just keep SC1 and Clash of Steel and join Holyman in waiting for the perfect WW2 strategy game.

[Exel]

Originally posted by RobRas:

I seriously dislike the look, I think isometric boards distorts the board making it much harder to estimate distances and placement of units. Especilly combined with all the fancy graphics of the counters and the board. Making it harder to recognize units and making it all look like some kind of diorama.

I could live with tiles if I could get the Top-Down simple graphics look as an option.

I agree with this whole-heartedly. Having made some comparison between the screenies and SC1, I've been convinced about the superior clarity provided by the latter. Tiles versus hexes don't matter much in that debate, but an isometric view does - it's quite simply inferior. I also noticed the same thing with the icons, SC1's simple plates being much clearer making it easier to form a picture of the situation, but otoh we should remember that the SC2 graphics are just a wip and probably subject to improvement. At least I hope so.

[KDG]

Second, the numerous advantages of hexes

Please expand, you didn't list a single one in your whole discussion. Lets not include looks, since looks are subjective. Some people like a board like appearance for the game, while others want 3D, lets only talk game mechanics/design.

Let me show you what I mean with an example.

Advantages of tiles

1) Movement - 8 directions, beats 6 directions.

2) Attack - 8 directions, plus 3 ground attacks can be brought against a single unit. Once again beats 6 directions of attack, and only 2 ground attacks.

3) Size of map - Hubert was limited by the programming language that he used for SC1 and hexes. You can search past threads and find this. Tiles eliminates this by giving us 250 x 250

4) Map design. It is easier to design a map using squares than it is using hexes. Take a look at the picture with all the diffent map pieces available in the editor. This wouldn't work the same with hexes. Tiles will speed up the process for anyone making custom maps.

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by RobRas:

In my view there are two sides to this debate:

The other discussion is the look of the game. I seriously dislike the look, I think isometric boards distorts the board making it much harder to estimate distances and placement of units. Especilly combined with all the fancy graphics of the counters and the board.

...

I could live with tiles if I could get the Top-Down simple graphics look as an option. I can't help but suspect that the isometric tile-based board primarily has been chosen to accomodate the new graphics engine (though I may be wrong in this). Which means that in order to get some graphics I don't want or need I have to get a game based on tiles which I don't like. Not excactly a perfect situation

...

I'll just keep SC1 and Clash of Steel and join Holyman in waiting for the perfect WW2 strategy game.

I really agree from the bottom of my heart!!

[Exel]

Originally posted by KDG:

Please expand, you didn't list a single one in your whole discussion.

Aanyway, I'll begin with responding to some of your arguments.

Attack - 8 directions, plus 3 ground attacks can be brought against a single unit. Once again beats 6 directions of attack, and only 2 ground attacks.

One could argue that 3 units being able to attack 1 on a straight front line isn't very realistic. Also, having more attack directions into one tile may actually make breakthrough harder, since any bulge or wedge formed in the line will immediately cause your front units in the breakthrough point to be hammered from up to 6 directions - even when your line is continuous.

Size of map - Hubert was limited by the programming language that he used for SC1 and hexes. You can search past threads and find this. Tiles eliminates this by giving us 250 x 250

Hex maps with sizes up to (or more than) 250x250 do exist in other games, so don't tell me it's not possible. Is it really the fault of hexes, or would it be programming instead?

Map design. It is easier to design a map using squares than it is using hexes. Take a look at the picture with all the diffent map pieces available in the editor. This wouldn't work the same with hexes. Tiles will speed up the process for anyone making custom maps.

Okay, making maps with tiles may be easier than with hexes, I give you that, but hexes on the other hand allow more natural and real looking maps. Just compare the shapes of certain land masses or borders in SC1 and SC2. Albania is my favorite example: In SC1 it is decently close to its real-life counterpart - at least it faintly reminds of it - but in SC2 it's only a four-tile square. It may only be aesthetical, but it sure affects my immersion to the game. And on the other hand, if aesthetics didn't matter, we might just as well have black and white vector graphics or ASCII.

Now, actual arguments for hexes:

- Superior clarity regarding movement and distance estimations and frontline integrity (though isometric view is a bigger factor here).

- Equal movement to all directions. Tiles have the annoying diagonal movement issue, that can't be solved in a fully satisfying manner; the movement will never be exactly equal, and the solutions result in fractional or immensely multiplied action points. Again, hexes beat tiles in simplicity and clarity.

- With hexes you don't need any zone of control rules unlike with tiles.

- The looks: Hexes simply look better, less angular and blocky. Front lines run more fluently. It all results from the simple fact that a hex is closer to a circle than a square is. It just looks more natural.

- A hex is of a superior shape. Even the bees agree with me. We should learn from the nature!

[Elmo]

Take a look at the attack difference diagrams Hubert posted at the beginning of this thread. Note that with tiles he will allow units to attack if they are adjacent to the defender where the tiles come to a point. That is what allows 3 or 5 units to attack.

Note however that you can accomplish the exact same thing by allowing the attacking units to the rear but along the hex spines (between the current attackers) in the diagrams to also attack. If you do that then 3 or 5 units can attack using the existing hex system in exactly the same manner as with tiles and so there is no need for tiles.

In fact he could even program it so that in the vertical attack example there could be up to 5 attackers, not just 3, assuming the two empty hexes along the defenders frontal spines also had attacking units there. That would make hexes even better at preventing a stagnant front than tiles.

So we get the best of both worlds by keeping the hex grid and changing the attack programming code to allow those spine attacks.

Unless I'm missing something this kills the primary argument presented so far for going with tiles.

[KDG]

- A hex is of a superior shape. Even the bees agree with me. We should learn from the nature!

Easily my favorite one. I know I'm in trouble since you have beeswhacked me.... Oh, and I'd say the female body is the superior shape. :cool:

One could argue that 3 units being able to attack 1 on a straight front line isn't very realistic. Also, having more attack directions into one tile may actually make breakthrough harder, since any bulge or wedge formed in the line will immediately cause your front units in the breakthrough point to be hammered from up to 6 directions - even when your line is continuous.

That brings in the value of your tanks, as they rush around two breakthroughs, cutting off you opponents supply, allowing the ground troops to mop up. Additionally, if the other side has enough reserves to attack from 6 directions after a breakthrough, then more power to him.

Hex maps with sizes up to (or more than) 250x250 do exist in other games, so don't tell me it's not possible. Is it really the fault of hexes, or would it be programming instead?

They may, but this was an issue in SC1. Everyone wanted a larger map. Hubert mentioned size limitations. Right now, I can't fault Hubert for anything, he's made my favorite game, and is working on my new favorite game.

Okay, making maps with tiles may be easier than with hexes, I give you that, but hexes on the other hand allow more natural and real looking maps. Just compare the shapes of certain land masses or borders in SC1 and SC2. Albania is my favorite example: In SC1 it is decently close to its real-life counterpart - at least it faintly reminds of it - but in SC2 it's only a four-tile square. It may only be aesthetical, but it sure affects my immersion to the game. And on the other hand, if aesthetics didn't matter, we might just as well have black and white vector graphics or ASCII.

Since you gave me that, I'm taking it.

- Superior clarity regarding movement and distance estimations and frontline integrity (though isometric view is a bigger factor here).

Click a unit, it shows where it can move, works either way with tile/hexes.

- Equal movement to all directions. Tiles have the annoying diagonal movement issue, that can't be solved in a fully satisfying manner; the movement will never be exactly equal, and the solutions result in fractional or immensely multiplied action points. Again, hexes beat tiles in simplicity and clarity.

Diagonal is your friend. Pythagoras is your friend. 2 AP to move horizontal/vertical, 3 AP to move Diagonal. Since terrain changes constantly, it, and not the diagonal, is what makes you think about action points. Additionally multiplied action points are good, since we may now have greater variation of movement for units.

- With hexes you don't need any zone of control rules unlike with tiles.

Zone of control is a staple of wargames. Hexes/tiles should have them anyways. SC1 had ZOC as will SC2.

- The looks: Hexes simply look better, less angular and blocky. Front lines run more fluently. It all results from the simple fact that a hex is closer to a circle than a square is. It just looks more natural.

There you go, bringing in looks again. I said no looks, but you had to bring it up , ok, fine here goes.

A hex doesn't know if its a circle or a square, it has no identity. The poor hexagon can't even get made as a house, but squares sure do.

Front lines look the same to me either way, and now I can have front lines go 8 different directions, which looks good to me.

Now don't get me wrong, the hexagon is my friend, and enjoy playing with him, but Mr. Tile is at least the hexagons equal.

A seperate topic should be started regarding the looks, not mentioning tiles/hexes, but mentioning either top down or isometric view. I think this seems to be the actual issue.

[ April 20, 2004, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

[Elmo]

Originally posted by KDG:

Never heard of Buckminster Fuller and the geodesic dome?! Hexagons are far superior to squares when it comes to building houses.

[roman uk]

In my humble opinion...

The fact that the switch to tiles gives you map sizes up to 250x250 is by itself such a step foward that any other minor points (and they are truly minor) of debate between tiles/hexes are moot.

I predict sc2 (really sc construction set) will be on my hard drive a long time.

[RobRas]

Quote by KDG: "Click a unit, it shows where it can move, works either way with tile/hexes.

"

True. But I need to estimate where all the unclicked units can move as well - at the same time. Easy to count hexes.

Quote by roman uk: "The fact that the switch to tiles gives you map sizes up to 250x250 is by itself such a step foward that any other minor points (and they are truly minor) of debate between tiles/hexes are moot". I don't feel that a larger map necessarily makes a better game. A better game makes a better game.

Antoher thing: I'm no programmer so I have to ask: How can it be that a map with hexes can't be made to 250x250? Why is that a problem?

[KDG]

True. But I need to estimate where all the unclicked units can move as well - at the same time. Easy to count hexes.

And counting tiles is difficult? If you can plan out all the moves in your head without clicking units, then I really think you can figure out how far a unit will move on the diagonal, don't you. :cool:

Antoher thing: I'm no programmer so I have to ask: How can it be that a map with hexes can't be made to 250x250? Why is that a problem?

If you do a search, Hubert answered these questions regarding SC1.

[J P Wagner]

Regarding the size of a hex based map, people need to remember what the World in Flames map looked like...it was one of the best aspects of the game.....and now that Matrix is doing the PC version of WiF, the competition for gamers money makes this a more serious issue than just one of personal preference....

[roman uk]

Quote RobRas: I don't feel that a larger map necessarily makes a better game. A better game makes a better game.

I think the advantages/disadvantages of hexes vs tiles makes very slight difference either way in a game like SC.

Tiles did not seem to hurt Civ, or Alpha Centuri, which I consider great games.

Hexes are aesthetically more pleasing, but sc is a very abstracted game, and tiles is definnitely not a deal breaker.

Thus if you use the same concept of SC1 with a bigger map, it does make a better game. Add editor and tweaked rules and you hae vast improvment. Still imperfect, definnitely. But better.

If only 'High Command' was supported, had stacking rules for units(after much though I realized it was its major combat fault! and definnitely a 'deal breaker'), and an AI worth to speak of. But it did have hexes. (g)

[jon_j_rambo]

There's a hidden demand for old hex strategy games made for computers. For some reason, the developers won't listen, they lack faith.

Please make:

Squad Leader (THE REAL ONE)

Civil War (THE REAL ONE)

Conquistador (THE REAL ONE)

"Ain't nothing but the Real thing" --- U2

[Battlefront.com]

Hi guys,

I thought it might be helpful to toss in a few bits from my perspective. For those of you who aren't familiar with me, a brief intro...

I'm Stephen Grammont and while growing up I played all sorts of war and strategy games. When I "grew up" I found I could not shake the urge to make my own games. The first one I made came out in 1994 and was called Onslaught, which was sorta a cross between AH's Blitzkrieg and Empire/Strategic Conquest type games, with a bunch of other stuff thrown in. The game was hex based, had stacking, and all sorts of detailed features. After getting crushed by the retail monster I went to work for Impressions, part of Sierra On-Line. There I was responsible, in no small way, for the development of Lords of the Realm (head of play testing) and Civil War Generals 2 (producer and jr. designer). The former is isometric tile based, the latter hex based. After that I started up a little company known as Battlefront.com. Perhaps some of you might have heard of it? The first game we made was something called Combat Mission - Beyond Overlord. It started out being hex based but we rewrote the engine to be tile based instead. I've been involved in the production of probably a dozen games in some way or another, including (very modestly) SC1 and (even more modestly) SC2.

With this background in playing and making both hex and tile based games, including some blockbusters, I'll now toss out a few things into this discussion:

1. The main voice against the SC2's new system is, as I see it, the usual "anti-change". Every single game player group I have ever been a part in for the last 11 years of professional game development (wargame or otherwise) contains a certain highly vocal minority element which is reactionary and very much opposed to change. Especially fundamental change. They will invent 101 reasons why it is better to leave things as is, and doggedly defend each and every point no matter what the counter argument is. I am seeing plenty of this here whether the posters themselves see it or not.

2. As much as core gamers care about the games being made, they too often offer the worst advice to game developers. The above reason being the main one, but more or less because they are better at evaluating what is instead of what might be (though they don't see it that way). If core gamer advice was followed to the letter I am sure we would all still be playing 1960s type boardgames, with not much innovation beyond that. I'm serious. For example, if you guys care to go back and research the early feedback given to us regarding Combat Mission you'd see what I mean. The ones crying every day about how we should just port Avalon Hill's ASL to the computer, without any changes, later told us how wrong they were AFTER playing the game we made as opposed to the game they claimed they wanted us to make.

3. The "Hex vs. Square" debate is an old one which is voiced with more emotional attachment than fair minded thinking. The truth is either one works fine if it's surrounded by a good game design. A bad game design can not be saved by hexes no more than it can be made by tiles. Obviously that means hex or square is largely irrelevant provided the game system itself is good. SC1 is an awesome game that has succeeded not because it was hex based but because it is really good. Therefore, arguments that so much as hint at "the game will stink if hexes aren't used" has discredited themselves without any counter arguments being needed.

4. SC1 was never designed to be the ultimate "wargamer's wargame". Some people might be disappointed to see that SC2 is not trying to be that, but that's like wishing an apple to taste like an orange with the red skin. What that means is the game is designed to be what it is supposed to be, not necessarily what an individual wants it to be. I'm sure everybody knows what kind of game SC1 was intended to be and can guess what SC2 is going to be. Keep all comments framed within that context.

5. I think we can all agree that SC1 is a great game, otherwise you wouldn't be here. Is it a game that you all designed? No. Is it something you influenced into being the great game that it is? Perhaps a little after you had it in your hands, but even then the hard work was already done for you. So... who did all that great work that you are arguing about? Hubert. In my book that means if Hubert and someone on this Forum have a disagreement about game design, without looking at the details I am inclined to take Hubert's side. Sure, it might be that Hubert is wrong... but odds are very much against that. Especially when something is so fundamental to the entire game.

6. Remember that SC2, no matter how good or how bad it might be (yeah right ), to you it is only a game. When the demo comes out you can download it and decide if it is worth buying. If most people think it stinks, they keep their money and Hubert has to live on SPAM and generic soda until he makes a new and better game. Never, ever forget this because it means that the person most responsible for making or breaking this game is also the one with the most to lose. Conversely, those with the least amount of responsibility are also the ones with the nothing to lose. You can afford to be wrong because you don't have to live with the consequences of that potential outcome. Hubert has no such luxury and therefore is more likely to have thought through the possibilities in far greater detail and with far greater insight than anybody else here.

The bottom line here is to remember to be humble and keep things in perspective. Hex or tile, neither is the Holy Grail nor the End of the World. It is all in the hands of the developer, and in this case you guys have no reason to suspect those hands to be anything but fully capable of delivering another great game no matter what system it should happen to use. The doubters in this crowd need to remember this more than they apparently do.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

There's a hidden demand for old hex strategy games made for computers. For some reason, the developers won't listen, they lack faith.

They listen, but they don't have the luxury of using "faith" to pay their bills, put food on the table, or to keep the roof over their head. They also have had a ton of experience with the games market and know that the tiny number of people that want such games would not justify making them. And they would still complain that they weren't done right, no matter how good and faithful they were

Squad Leader (THE REAL ONE)

If we had done this instead of Combat Mission we wouldn't be having this discussion unless you were the guy flipping burgers next to Charles and me.

Steve

[ April 21, 2004, 01:00 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[KDG]

Steve, thanks for sharing your time and your thoughts.

Now how about a new civil war game.

[RobRas]

Quote by KDG: "And counting tiles is difficult? If you can plan out all the moves in your head without clicking units, then I really think you can figure out how far a unit will move on the diagonal, don't you". Yup, counting tiles (with different movement rates for moving diagonally) is more difficult than counting hexes. At least it is for more. Especially when the board is isometric - if we had the Top-Down flat look it would be easier.

KDG wrote: "If you do a search, Hubert answered these questions regarding SC1." I tried to find this and I found a thread where Hubert stated that Windows itself forced him to limit the size of the boards ie the number of columns and rows but I can seem to find the hex/tile discussion. I'll try again later.

Steve wrote: "The main voice against the SC2's new system is, as I see it, the usual "anti-change". Every single game player group I have ever been a part in for the last 11 years of professional game development (wargame or otherwise) contains a certain highly vocal minority element which is reactionary and very much opposed to change. Especially fundamental change. They will invent 101 reasons why it is better to leave things as is, and doggedly defend each and every point no matter what the counter argument is. I am seeing plenty of this here whether the posters themselves see it or not".

I'm one of those evil conservatives who just oppose change for fun with no arguments whatsoever. Just inventing a lot of reasons because I don't have anything else to do. Or could it possibly be that arguments could be raised for hexes? Or for a simple Top-Down board without all the fancy graphics? Oops, sorry. I'm opposing change again.

Steve wrote: "If most people think it stinks, they keep their money and Hubert has to live on SPAM and generic soda until he makes a new and better game". True. But I don't doubt that fancy graphics and isometric maps sell more games. Me not buying it will easily be offset by someone else looking at the back of the box and going "Wow, look at that nice tank and the Eiffel Tower. I'm gonna buy this game".