Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > The Fantasy Trip

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-24-2018, 01:02 PM   #31
kbs666
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Default Re: The Cartesian Heresy

that might be the issue. I've got a couple of big felt sheets for the bottom level of my playing surfaces and everything else is flocked or otherwise has some texture.

Putting the dots inside buildings etc. Assumes you'll always use it in the same orientation. I play many different games so my terrain and buildings gets used a lot. Especially my scatter pieces, that's why they're called scatter terrain after all. I could do that with some big piece if I intended it strictly for use in just a hex based game but that is a minority of games I play. It might make sense for my 1/300th stuff which I strictly use for BattleTech but almost everyone who plays that plays it as a pure mini game at this point and doesn't worry about hexes.
kbs666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2018, 03:26 PM   #32
platimus
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: behind you
Default Re: The Cartesian Heresy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne View Post
Stefan Jones wrote somewhere (I guess that wouldn't work with an academic essay).

Multiply MA x 2. Straight line movement costs 2 MA per square and Diagonal movement costs 3 MA per square moved.

This is really neat and understandable.
I like this. A lot. However after playing around with different ratios for the MA8, MA10, MA12, MA14, and MA16 ranges, I think I'm going to multiply MA x 3 and use a 3/4 ratio (3 MA for orthogonal and 4 MA for diagonal). According to ruler/measurements, MA x 3 with 3/4 MA cost is more accurate at the lower MAs but gives an extra diagonal square of movement at MA16.

MA x 2 with 2/3 MA cost tends to short-change all of these MA ranges by one diagonal square. I'd rather give the higher MAs an extra square than short-change the lower MAs.

Can someone double-check me on this? I found myself getting mixed-up a lot trying to go back forth between the two formulas when comparing.
platimus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2018, 04:06 PM   #33
ParadoxGames
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: New Jersey
Default Re: The Cartesian Heresy

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bofinger View Post
there are real advantages to using squares rather than hexes.

I know some people have looked at this (as I recall Thomas Fulmer had a version) but I couldn't find their work with a quick search. Suppose we wanted to allow it as an option: how should it work?

My suggestions:[LIST][*]It costs one movement point to move to an adjacent square, whether orthogonal or diagonal.[*]It costs an extra movement point to make two consecutive diagonal moves.
My idea was the opposite: It costs an extra movement point to move to a diagonal square, then one point for the next consecutive diagonal.

On a square hex the ratio from the center of an diagonal square compared to an adjacent one is 1.414 to 1, rounded up to 1.5. Since you need more than 1 movement point to move 1.5, the first diagonal square would require one to use 1.5 of 2 movement points, and the next one would require the remaining .5 +1. I can't think of a simpler than the 2-point 1-point diagonal movement to do this while retaining whole numbers and being fairly accurate geometrically... alhough Wayne's proposed system is very similar.
__________________
Daring adventurers are invited to join The Fantasy Trip Discord server: https://discord.gg/Z7AtdCe
Ogre gamers unite: https://discord.gg/VmfVkuh

Last edited by ParadoxGames; 09-16-2018 at 04:10 PM. Reason: fixing spelling
ParadoxGames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2018, 06:38 PM   #34
platimus
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: behind you
Default Re: The Cartesian Heresy

Quote:
Originally Posted by ParadoxGames View Post
My idea was the opposite: It costs an extra movement point to move to a diagonal square, then one point for the next consecutive diagonal.

On a square hex the ratio from the center of an diagonal square compared to an adjacent one is 1.414 to 1, rounded up to 1.5. Since you need more than 1 movement point to move 1.5, the first diagonal square would require one to use 1.5 of 2 movement points, and the next one would require the remaining .5 +1. I can't think of a simpler than the 2-point 1-point diagonal movement to do this while retaining whole numbers and being fairly accurate geometrically... alhough Wayne's proposed system is very similar.
Actually, your idea is the same as the 2/3 method. Maybe you meant it was opposite to mine? While that is very simple (counting by 2 then 1, 2 then 1 on the diagonal), it short-changes you on the diagonal (just like the MA x 2 and 2/3 method).

The diagonal of a square is given by: d = a x 2^1/2
(Diagonal 'd' is the length of 'a' side multiplied by the square-root of 2)

2^1/2 = 1.41421 (if you don't inaccurately round up)
1/1.41421 = 0.70710 (the 'real ratio')

If you use the 2/3 ratio, 2/3 = 0.66666
If you use the 3/4 ratio, 3/4 = 0.75

0.75 - 0.7071 = 0.0429 (difference between 'real ratio' and 3/4 method)
0.7071 - 0.66666 = 0.04044 (difference between 'real ratio' and 2/3 method)

So, the 2/3 method is slightly closer to the 'real ratio' but it is less than the real ratio. The 3/4 method is slightly more than the 'real ratio'...but I'd much rather get an extra square of movement than loose an extra square of movement. And you will lose a diagonal square of movement at common MAs using the 2/3 method (versus the measuring method).

The 3/4 method is just as simple as the 2/3 method. You have to count by 3s in both methods. The difference in mental effort of counting by 2s or counting by 4s is trivial for me. You get the right amount squares of diagonal movement with the 3/4 method at common MAs (compared to the measuring method).

Here's a graph that lets you see the differences between the three methods (measuring, 2/3 method, and 3/4 method):
https://imgur.com/kvFBSDo

EDIT1:
After looking at my own graph for awhile, I think I will abandon the 3/4 method that involves multiplying MA by 3. Instead, I'll count on the diagonal like so: 1-1-2-1-1-2-1-1-2 (or 1-2-4-5-6-8-9-10-12-13-14-16). In other words, diagonal squares will cost 1 MA but every 3rd diagonal square will cost 2 MA. Thanks for the counting idea, ParadoxGames!

EDIT2:
Upon further review, I've decided the "1-2 counting method" is best for movement. :)
"1-1-2" works if you force things to move in the straightest possible path. I did another graph to show the range of MA8 but looked for unconventional or less straight paths. I didn't like the results. I could sometimes go farther by not taking a straight path. I will use "1-2" for movement but I'm still tempted to use "1-1-2" for weapon reach (but not range of missile weapons).

EDIT3:
Upon further review, I've found that the "1-2 counting method" can be exploited just like the "1-1-2 counting method". Therefore, I'm going back to my original method, the "3/4 method".

EDIT4:
Ok, 2/3 wins :) The counting is a little easier and it aligns wells with the whole "move up to half your MA to attack" thing. I surrender.

Last edited by platimus; 09-18-2018 at 07:01 PM.
platimus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2018, 09:06 PM   #35
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: The Cartesian Heresy

I have used squares sometimes. I prefer using hexes. Like Rick, I'd rather have square buildings just drawn as such and then overlay a hex grid, especially using the transparent hex grids I like.

I agree that doubling MA and charging 2 to move straight and 3 diagonally works very well.

I disagree that you should not be able to attack diagonally. To me it feels rather gamey that way, though it does have the "advantage" that the potential gang-up density goes down compared to normal TFT, rather than up.

I also would say that the facing diagram should continue to be 1/2 front hexes, not 3 front and 3 rear with two sides. i.e. for a right-handed person, I use:

FFF
S+F
RRS

Note that this is still slightly worse that the facings on a hex grid, as the ratio of rears to sides has gone to 2:2 instead of 1:2.

One of the main issues with going to a grid though is that it affects the number of people who can gang up on one person.

But it basically works.

I have also played mapless. The main issue there becomes judging exactly where everyone is, how closely they can stand to each other, who's within reach, whose LOS is blocked, and who has what facing on whom, exactly. But it also basically works, as long as everyone is content with the GM's rulings.
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2018, 10:05 PM   #36
platimus
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: behind you
Default Re: The Cartesian Heresy

Quote:
Originally Posted by fisherro View Post
Yeah. I love hexes, but the one thing that gets me considering squares is my investment in Dwarven Forge dungeon tiles.

I’m thinking I’d just keep it simple & do...

FFF
SXS
SRS

...and...

FFS
FXS
SSR

...for facings. And maybe make some on-the-fly rulings to prevent more than 6 opponents from surrounding a single figure.
I like that facing scheme as well. It's really simple. I plan to let poor X man get surrounded by 8 attackers but no more than 6 of them can attack poor X man in a given round. Init will guide who attacks and who doesn't.
platimus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2018, 10:40 AM   #37
fisherro
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Default Re: The Cartesian Heresy

BTW, I picked up another way of handling diagonal movement from Jeff Dee: Orthogonal & diagonal cost the same, but you can't make two diagonal moves in a row.

Here's an old blog post where I made graphics to represent the different ways of handing diagonals:
https://malirath.blogspot.com/2011/0...uare-grid.html
fisherro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2018, 10:46 AM   #38
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: The Cartesian Heresy

Quote:
Originally Posted by fisherro View Post
BTW, I picked up another way of handling diagonal movement from Jeff Dee: Orthogonal & diagonal cost the same, but you can't make two diagonal moves in a row.
"Sorry, you can't keep moving NW because we're using a clever way to avoid having to count to 20 by 2 & 3, instead of counting to 10 by 1."
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2018, 11:41 AM   #39
platimus
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: behind you
Default Re: The Cartesian Heresy

Quote:
Originally Posted by fisherro View Post
BTW, I picked up another way of handling diagonal movement from Jeff Dee: Orthogonal & diagonal cost the same, but you can't make two diagonal moves in a row.

Here's an old blog post where I made graphics to represent the different ways of handing diagonals:
https://malirath.blogspot.com/2011/0...uare-grid.html
That is essentially the same thing as every other diagonal move costs 2 MA.
platimus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2018, 11:43 AM   #40
platimus
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: behind you
Default Re: The Cartesian Heresy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
"Sorry, you can't keep moving NW because we're using a clever way to avoid having to count to 20 by 2 & 3, instead of counting to 10 by 1."
LOL I'm sure that's not what they meant LOL

I think they were really costing diagonal moves at 1 MA but every other diagonal move is 2 MA. They just explained in a different way.

EDIT
Oh wow. That is literally what they meant. Not a fan of that method! LOL

Last edited by platimus; 09-17-2018 at 11:54 AM.
platimus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.