Considering the standard 5 Mile Hex for TFT

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

(continued)

Oh, and just for reference: ITL has maps in the following scales per hex:
page 18: ...

Hi Ak_aramis,
Thanks for all this data. Have you information on riding horses?

I tend to say if you are on horse back you get a minor bonus (say 10% more speed) when traveling on flat ground or light woods. But the major advantage is that you are not as tired at the end of a day's travel.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

The Way off Base was that 5 miles is an industry standard - which was part of your initial claim

If you will check my original post, you will *not* find the words *Industry Standard* contained anywhere therein - in my posts I used the term: *original* standard, regarding the 5-Mile Hex, as *originally* informed on page 17 of OD&D, vol.3: UaWA, 1974; and subsequently became the *accepted* standard by TSR and Judges Guild - exactly as cited in the OP.

Your misquote above unsuccessfully attempts to artificially manufacture a big difference; and is the 2nd misquote of me you have made - equally ineffective and inaccurate - like the 1st misquote of me you made HERE.

I am not sure what you are trying to achieve by misquoting me repeatedly and then typing away furiously, or why, but please feel no obligation to share the answer.

JK

[guymc]

OK, gang, simmer down. Reduce the rhetoric level to "gentle boil", please.

The map scales are indeed from the new edition, or at least the version I was playing with when the first GM screen roughs were being put together. Yes, everything is standardizing on English measurement, largely because we Yanks are woefully deficient on visualizing in the metric system.

As to the 9/12 controversy, it is a matter of rounding the table off for easier visualization. I know if 1 hex - 4 feet that 3 hexes across = 12 feet --- if you go from flat to flat across the hexes. But hexes aren't organized that way.

As I think someone pointed out earlier, the distance between two megahex centers is more like 10.68 ft. So if we round it comes out around 10.5 feet. That multiplies inconveniently for visualization so we could round it to just 10 feet and it would then multiply out fine just like the rest of the table (going from 10 feet to 10 yards in the next step).

When you get to the 4th step, the actual distance (if we go back to the 12 ft measurement across the faces of a megahex) is 108 yards. Our step has it at 100 yards for convenience. Likewise, the rest of the table rounds off to an even, easily visualized number as follows:

REAL hexside to hexside OUR estimated
measurement measurement

108 yds 100 yds
324 yds 300 yds
972 yds 900 yds
2916 yds (1.6568 mi) 1.5 mi
4.97 mi. 5 mi.

So why 9 ft instead of 12, or 11, or 10 for the Labyrinth hex?

Look at the Labyrinth hex as 3 yds instead of 9 ft.

The 1 hex = 4 ft measurement is better than 3 ft/1 yd =1 hex because it simulates the actual freedom of movement for a person swinging a weapon. But there is nothing else magic about it. Our base area of control for a figure could have been 3 feet. But it felt a little tight. so when talking about what is best for the sake of "feeling" right, the 4 foot distance reflects how the system (and the real world) behaves a bit better.

DIGRESSION
Actually, if you want to be strict about it, 3 feet works for the REAL people of the middle ages, because they were on the average shorter with a proportionally shorter reach. But our people are not really wanting to reproduce the middle ages in detail any more than the SCA wants to reproduce the plague, middle ages medicine, or the real methods of choosing monarchs. (Mostly, you didn't choose them.You sure didn't choose them in friendly man-to-man combats.) They want to reproduce the feel of being in a fantasy world where fantasists mostly have characters reflect people as their readers think of them. You don't want your hulking barbarian to be 5-foot-2, do you?
END DIGRESSION

So the 4 foot measurement of a tactical hex is to simulate a person's reach and zone of control, because we want it to feel right.It is a purely arbitrary measurement otherwise.

Well, the 3 yd measurement isn't meant to be used in that fashion. When you are fighting, a megahex is 12 feet wide flat face to flat face and the centers of them are about 10.6 feet apart.

But when you are moving a party through rough cavernous corridors, 9 feet (3 yards) feels about right. You should be a little uncomfortable walking 3 abreast in a tunnel. (A tiny one gets down to one hex -- about 4 feet across. A really tight squeeze.) You tell someone something is three yards across and they visualize a tight space. Two people walking abreast will be relatively free to move. Three across will be a solid wall of flesh someone coming the other way will have to go through (or over, once you kill them), not maneuver around.

Does the Labyrinth hex match exactly the megahex used in the tactical map. No! And who cares? It isn't being used for maneuver. If you fight in a corridor, it is a megahex wide. If you walk through it, it is a 3 yard Labyrinth hex. It is just a shift in viewpoint.

My wife can put things into a freezer or a cabinet that I would work for hours to try and fit in -- and I would fail. She says it is because she doesn't get hung up on physical space. After 40 years of marriage, I bow to her philosophy in the matter.I can't do it, but it no longer bothers me that she can. (Besides, it gets me out of putting away groceries a whole lot.)

If you just can't go with the flow, though, no big deal. Visualize the labyrinth hex as being 10.5 (or if you are a REAL stickler, 10.68) feet wide. It won't make a bit of difference to the next scale up or down. Whatever floats your boat.

And remember -- especially on these forums -- the next guy's viewpoint is not "wrong" in a game where a character can wave her hands and mumble a few words and cause the stone floor in front of you to burst into flame. It may be different, and you are free to "disbelieve" it. But it isn't wrong. And whether you say so in a flatly rude way or in a clever, sarcastic manner -- it still isn't needed here.

And that is my LAST word on the 9/12 "controversy". Moving along...

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Hi Ak_aramis,
Thanks for all this data. Have you information on riding horses?

I tend to say if you are on horse back you get a minor bonus (say 10% more speed) when traveling on flat ground or light woods. But the major advantage is that you are not as tired at the end of a day's travel.

Warm regards, Rick.

No, I don't have good numbers for horses. I know someone who does, but he's got a lot on his plate right now. (He's a historian focusing on military history, especially WW I - and has the FM's for the era. Including how to plan a cavalry march.)

The limited data I've seen is that walking speeds generally are 3-5 mph, go between 1/2 and 4/5 of their walk speed on march for up to about 8 hours per day; this is allowance for some limited browsing along the way. (I cannot attribute that source-wise)

[Jim Kane]

Guy - Thanks for the clarity.

I get it now, and it (now) it seems so obvious when one simply considers the outside width variance which makes up a single megahex, then, when one further considers that variance over a chain of three or more megahexes in length, the *averaged width* of a megahex within a tunnel section then averages out to 9.3333 feet wide; which does indeed properly round to 9.

The key to understanding I was missing is that we are talking about the *averaged width* of a megahex, and solely for purposes of considering it at the labyrinth scale.

Excellent. Thank you.

JK