Might tactical combat work better with half-yard hexes?

Michael Thayne · 08-09-2019, 03:07 PM

GURPS' close-combat rules are confusing. I've been thinking about how to fix this, and part of me wonders if the best approach might be half-yard hexes. I probably haven't thought of all the edge-cases yet, but the general principles are these:

Sharing hexes is only possible if one character is literally, physically on top of another. It shouldn't feature prominently in combat except when grappling and at least one participant in the grapple is prone.
In general, read references to "same hex" as "adjancent hexes" whenever the former turn crops up in the rules.
Exception: there's no penalty for moving through a hex adjancent to a friendly character.
I lean towards "round up" when converting distances of more than one half-yard hex to regular hexes, but might be persuaded "round down" is better.

Thoughts? Potential problems? Edge cases to be considered?

Anthony · 08-09-2019, 03:33 PM

You'd likely have inconveniencies with reach; an average broadsword would probably be reach 3 on a half-yard scale. Really, if you want finer granularity, you might be better off going hexless like a lot of miniature wargames.

Agemegos · 08-09-2019, 05:38 PM

I am more than half a yard wide, and I would get wider if I developed some muscle in my shoulders. If I were carrying a shield and hand weapon I would be considerably more so.

A step being about thirty inches, might a 30" hex be convenient?

Michael Thayne · 08-09-2019, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agemegos

A step being about thirty inches, might a 30" hex be convenient?

Mostly I'm trying to avoid some of the odd consequences you get from weird rules on sharing hexes. "Half-yard unshareable hexes" has the same consequences for the density of tightly-packed crowds as "one-yard hexes which can be shared by up to four people". Probably most people are more than half a yard wide, but less than half a yard across, so it balances. I might impose a combat penalty for trying to attack someone more than a hex away if there are any characters directly adjacent to you.

Anthony · 08-09-2019, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

Mostly I'm trying to avoid some of the odd consequences you get from weird rules on sharing hexes.

Just make close combat 1 hex and add a hex to the reach of all weapons. Reach in GURPS is a bit too low anyway.

lugaid · 08-09-2019, 07:42 PM

If you were rewriting things, another advantage to the 30"/2.5' hex is that, for Dungeon Fantasy, it makes traditional 10' and 5' corridors much easier to depict on a battle map.

~~namada~~ · 08-10-2019, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agemegos

I am more than half a yard wide, and I would get wider if I developed some muscle in my shoulders. If I were carrying a shield and hand weapon I would be considerably more so.

A step being about thirty inches, might a 30" hex be convenient?

Quote:

Originally Posted by lugaid

If you were rewriting things, another advantage to the 30"/2.5' hex is that, for Dungeon Fantasy, it makes traditional 10' and 5' corridors much easier to depict on a battle map.

Here's another vote for using 30"/2.5' hexes in GURPS!

Since a human's stride is, realistically, far closer to 2.5' than it is to 3' - I'd think you could easily enhance and streamline all of GURPS' movement rules, including facing changes*, simply by switching the scale, though I haven't actually done the comparison (when I built my own system, that's where I started though.)

*I've never been a fan of free facing changes, especially regarding applying human-scale to something larger, like a mammoth, for example.

Proteus · 08-10-2019, 10:32 AM

If you continue to use 1" hexes as your half-yard unit, you’re putting GURPS' ground scale even further out of whack with figure scale; a prone human should then be almost four hexes long, but your 25-30mm minis/flats will only take up one hex when knocked over.

A 15mm hex grid would almost restore GURPS' existing (wrong) relationship, but I don't think anyone sells battlemaps at that gridding any more. Also printing out Cardboard Heroes at double size (or playing with bottom-weighted Star Wars action figures...?) would produce the proper picture.

Plane · 08-10-2019, 11:25 AM

Half-yard hexes are basically already a half-concept given how close combat works. B391:

When you enter an enemy-occupied hex, you occupy half the hex.
You have the half of the hex from which you entered;
he has the other half.

I think of hexes being broken into 6 triangles, you being centered on the triangle touching the side of the hex you entered from and occupying the 2 triangles within the hex which share an edge with it.

Assuming the enemy is centered on the opposite triangle gets weird when you have more than 2 people in close combat though, because then you'd have the guy occupying 2 distinctly different halves of that hex.

In a situation like that, I think maybe the original occupant chooses what triangle they're centered on, and if they're not directly in the way of where someone wants to go, there should be a bonus to evade them.

08-09-2019, 03:07 PM	#1
Michael Thayne Join Date: May 2010	Might tactical combat work better with half-yard hexes? GURPS' close-combat rules are confusing. I've been thinking about how to fix this, and part of me wonders if the best approach might be half-yard hexes. I probably haven't thought of all the edge-cases yet, but the general principles are these: Sharing hexes is only possible if one character is literally, physically on top of another. It shouldn't feature prominently in combat except when grappling and at least one participant in the grapple is prone. In general, read references to "same hex" as "adjancent hexes" whenever the former turn crops up in the rules. Exception: there's no penalty for moving through a hex adjancent to a friendly character. I lean towards "round up" when converting distances of more than one half-yard hex to regular hexes, but might be persuaded "round down" is better. Thoughts? Potential problems? Edge cases to be considered?

08-09-2019, 03:33 PM	#2
Anthony Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Berkeley, CA	Re: Might tactical combat work better with half-yard hexes? You'd likely have inconveniencies with reach; an average broadsword would probably be reach 3 on a half-yard scale. Really, if you want finer granularity, you might be better off going hexless like a lot of miniature wargames. __________________ My GURPS site and Blog.

08-09-2019, 05:38 PM	#3
Agemegos Join Date: May 2005 Location: Oz	Re: Might tactical combat work better with half-yard hexes? I am more than half a yard wide, and I would get wider if I developed some muscle in my shoulders. If I were carrying a shield and hand weapon I would be considerably more so. A step being about thirty inches, might a 30" hex be convenient? __________________ Decay is inherent in all composite things. Nod head. Get treat. Last edited by Agemegos; 08-09-2019 at 05:42 PM.

08-09-2019, 07:42 PM	#6
lugaid Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Seattle, WA USA	Re: Might tactical combat work better with half-yard hexes? If you were rewriting things, another advantage to the 30"/2.5' hex is that, for Dungeon Fantasy, it makes traditional 10' and 5' corridors much easier to depict on a battle map.

08-10-2019, 10:32 AM	#8
Proteus Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Houston, TX	Re: Might tactical combat work better with half-yard hexes? If you continue to use 1" hexes as your half-yard unit, you’re putting GURPS' ground scale even further out of whack with figure scale; a prone human should then be almost four hexes long, but your 25-30mm minis/flats will only take up one hex when knocked over. A 15mm hex grid would almost restore GURPS' existing (wrong) relationship, but I don't think anyone sells battlemaps at that gridding any more. Also printing out Cardboard Heroes at double size (or playing with bottom-weighted Star Wars action figures...?) would produce the proper picture. __________________ — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — Looking for a GURPS game in Houston, Texas.

08-10-2019, 11:25 AM	#9
Plane Join Date: Aug 2018	Re: Might tactical combat work better with half-yard hexes? Half-yard hexes are basically already a half-concept given how close combat works. B391: When you enter an enemy-occupied hex, you occupy half the hex. You have the half of the hex from which you entered; he has the other half. I think of hexes being broken into 6 triangles, you being centered on the triangle touching the side of the hex you entered from and occupying the 2 triangles within the hex which share an edge with it. Assuming the enemy is centered on the opposite triangle gets weird when you have more than 2 people in close combat though, because then you'd have the guy occupying 2 distinctly different halves of that hex. In a situation like that, I think maybe the original occupant chooses what triangle they're centered on, and if they're not directly in the way of where someone wants to go, there should be a bonus to evade them.