Size of Melee Hexes

[JLV]

That's pretty much the way I always handled it too...

[Terquem]

Originally Posted by Terquem

I'll fire up AutoCad today

The sheet of paper that will display the map should have a regular size (ISO 216 standard sizes are close but not exact to ANSIY14.1 standard sizes, and I don't know what standard Steve Jackson Games is more familiar with and uses for all their product development, if they are determined to stick with American "Loose" paper sizes, well I suppose I can work with that, haha) and on this sheet I need to decide how much "Area" will be taken up by the image

I can't know the product size of the boxes that will be offered for the Kickstarter, but let's say they are 9"x12" (that original "red box" game, you know that "other" game we aren't talking about here was 9x11.5")

If the box is 9"x12" and I am shooting for producing an image on an ANSI Y14.1 sheet size C which is 17"x22" (close to ISO A2, 16.5"x23.4") I bet I can but an image of the Melee Map on a field with sufficient borders and text in the margins with handy references using 32mm hexes, and with bleed through (printing right to the edge of each sheet) have two folded 11"x17" sheets that when placed together make a 17"x22" game board

I check back after I've run a few changes on my AutoCad file


I'll also run a version on two "Legal" size sheets (8.5"x14" which is a unique "Loose" American paper size that is not close to either ISO or ANSI standards, but can be reproduced in AutoCad Plotting formats)

I suppose the 8.5"x14" sheet would have to be folded itself (otherwise the box size would need a dimension in one plane greater than 14 inches, right?). If this is 7"x8.5" and there were two folded maps placed side by side. this would be a game board 14"x17" (?)

The Car Wars box game (released a few years ago) was 6.25"x9.25" (approximate to within .0625 inches)

Edited

This post gets a little technical in AutoCad details, ignore it if this is not interesting to you.

I have a Melee Map dated ©1977, which came with my game, which is dated ©1979 (blue-ish green cover, nearly nekkid warrior with unusually short legs standing over a defeated mutant smurf).

This map is on a sheet of paper which does not conform to any conventional size standard (Did they cut each of these sheets by hand?) – this paper size is 8.25” x 14” and has a nominal margin of .25” (copyright information and Metagaming identification are printed in the margin). The hex size on this map is 15/16” (approximately 23.8125mm)

I cannot see a way to increase the hex size on any sheet of paper at or near these dimensions (a Legal sized sheet, American Loose Size, is only .25 inches larger in one dimension than the original map sheet).

An 11”x17” sheet of paper (Tabloid size sheet, American Loose Size or ANSI Y14.1 “B” size) alone, with a .25” margin fits a Melee Hex map with hexes that measure 28mm or about 1.125” – BUT this sheet looks crowded.

In AutoCad the hexes are drawn on the Model space, at 32mm edge to edge – the map sheet is placed on the paper space of an ANSI Full Bleed B layout with a 1:1 annotation scale and a viewport scale of .036 – NOW I could change the units in Model Space to inches, and draw the hexes “to scale” once I know what the general consensus of hex distance “in the real world” should be. I have decided on a hex size “in the real world” of five feet, which works in harmony with many other role playing games I play. The choice to draw the hexes not “to scale” in model space comes from my decision to use Lego Minifigs as the standard human figure and arbitrarily fixing the “scale” of the Minifigs to 1:48 (which is not exactly the real scale of a Minifig because the Minifig does not have “scaled” proportions).

Creating a layout of ANSI Full Bleed C (17”x22”) with a 1:1 annotation scale and viewport scale set to .04 gives me a sheet of paper 17”x22” with 32mm hexes. The hex area does not crowd the paper, leaving me room on the “open” sides to ad text with handy information such as common modifiers and options for figures. I can also add a .5” margin with an “artistic” stone work rendition (AutoCad BHatch fill “Gravel” )

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Terquem

This post gets a little technical in AutoCad details, ignore it if this is not interesting to you.

I have a Melee Map dated ©1977, which came with my game, which is dated ©1979 (blue-ish green cover, nearly nekkid warrior with unusually short legs standing over a defeated mutant smurf).

This map is on a sheet of paper which does not conform to any conventional size standard (Did they cut each of these sheets by hand?) – this paper size is 8.25” x 14” and has a nominal margin of .25” (copyright information and Metagaming identification are printed in the margin). The hex size on this map is 15/16” (approximately 23.8125mm)

I cannot see a way to increase the hex size on any sheet of paper at or near these dimensions (a Legal sized sheet, American Loose Size, is only .25 inches larger in one dimension than the original map sheet).

An 11”x17” sheet of paper (Tabloid size sheet, American Loose Size or ANSI Y14.1 “B” size) alone, with a .25” margin fits a Melee Hex map with hexes that measure 28mm or about 1.125” – BUT this sheet looks crowded.

In AutoCad the hexes are drawn on the Model space, at 32mm edge to edge – the map sheet is placed on the paper space of an ANSI Full Bleed B layout with a 1:1 annotation scale and a viewport scale of .036 – NOW I could change the units in Model Space to inches, and draw the hexes “to scale” once I know what the general consensus of hex distance “in the real world” should be. I have decided on a hex size “in the real world” of five feet, which works in harmony with many other role playing games I play. The choice to draw the hexes not “to scale” in model space comes from my decision to use Lego Minifigs as the standard human figure and arbitrarily fixing the “scale” of the Minifigs to 1:48 (which is not exactly the real scale of a Minifig because the Minifig does not have “scaled” proportions).

Creating a layout of ANSI Full Bleed C (17”x22”) with a 1:1 annotation scale and viewport scale set to .04 gives me a sheet of paper 17”x22” with 32mm hexes. The hex area does not crowd the paper, leaving me room on the “open” sides to ad text with handy information such as common modifiers and options for figures. I can also add a .5” margin with an “artistic” stone work rendition (AutoCad BHatch fill “Gravel” )

Yeah, my experiments in Illustrator agree with you. <sigh>

You'd have to break the map down to fit the dimensions of a legal sized sheet. But 1" bases are gonna be tough with <1" hexes.

[Rick_Smith]

Hi all,
The Melee and Wizard maps were 23 mm. But I normally game on a Chessex map with 25 mm hexes. I never notice the difference unless I pull out a really big counter. (My 30 hex dragon does not fit well on the Chessex map, for example.)

I've never tried using the extra small hexes that came in the ItL book.

I have brought the Chessex map with me to conventions, and most 28 mm miniatures will fit OK on it.

If the new TFT has hexes sizes from 23 to 25 mm I will be happy.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Terquem]

One issue I'm still not sold on is the size of the Hex in the "game world"

I really do not like a three foot hex. It just feels "too close" for heroic combat.

When I watch The Court Jester and get lost in the duel between the Black Fox (Jester) and Lord Ravenhurst the space between them (I know this is theatrical for a reason and not an actual representation of Medieval Combat) seems what I am really after in my games, which to me seems like five feet or more from the centerline of one to the centerline of the other duelist.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Terquem

One issue I'm still not sold on is the size of the Hex in the "game world"

I really do not like a three foot hex. It just feels "too close" for heroic combat. ...

Well currently the hex size is 1.333 meters, which is pretty close to 4.5 feet.

Warm regards, Rick

[Terquem]

weird, I thought it was 3 feet. Thanks

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Terquem

weird, I thought it was 3 feet. Thanks

GURPS hexes are 1 yard. I don't like 4.5-5 foot hexes because they result in constricted rooms and corridors.

The typical 10' wide corridor is only 2 spaces wide; I prefer 3 spaces wide. The 1st edition AD&D envisioned corridors 3 spaces wide as well. In a game like TFT, where maneuver is important, constrained spaces suck the life out of combat.


So I lobbied for TFT to switch to GURPs like 3' hexes, but with TFT sizes for larger creatures (i.e., 2 hexes for horses) and no 3 hex weapons.

Since then, I've bought a megaton of Pathfinder "pawns" and dungeon tiles. I've decided I can live with TFT's current scale and will just have really big rooms in my dungeons.

[Terquem]

I tend to like the constricted room and passageway, which, for me okay, represents the idea that spaces ARE constricted and even though a group of players may all want to get into a battle, if you put two people with weapons 22" to 34" in length in a ten foot room, they are going to take up the whole space trading blows.

I tend to use larger areas with narrow connected passages for my natural underground settings.

Also - if anyone noticed, I had the layer for the center dots on my Melee map turned off when I printed it and didn't notice. I reprinted it on Thursday and the dots came out great but this time I had the layer with Text turned off

Doh!

[JLV]

I think the current size of hexes (4.5-ish feet) is just fine, both tactically and "realistically." Considering the amount of work necessary to carve an underground passage through living rock, even with magic available to help, I can't imagine anyone wanting to put any extra effort into it they didn't have to -- which makes a 9 or 10-foot wide passage sound about right.

Additionally, in a world where monsters and magic live, I think I'd want to constrict the number of enemies that could attack me in my underground area in any way I could -- making sure that only two of the invading orc-horde could attack at any one time certainly eliminates the advantage of their greater numbers in terms of actual engagement ability, and significantly slows their advance.