Scales of maps and play

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by JLV

The only comment I'll make is that to most of us old grognards, "wargaming" means pushing cardboard counters around on a hex-gridded map -- meaning that TFT is *already* "wargaming." As examples, War in Europe, Europa, War Between the States, several hundred issues of S&T Magazine (with games), the just finished Kickstarter for Thunder in the East, thousands of other wargames...

What you describe is what most wargamers refer to as "Miniatures."

Not to me it doesn't. I started in the '70s with Don Featherstone books and Airfix plastic soldiers. We played on the carpet with measuring sticks, graduating onto tables with metal figures. That's Wargaming to me, and we played TFT the same way; with minis on a felt sheet, using chalk to mark terrain features and an inch marked ruler for distances. We only used hexes for the odd Melee matchup. Counters on a hex map is "Board Wargaming" to me. Not the real thing 😜

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

Not to me it doesn't. I started in the '70s with Don Featherstone books and Airfix plastic soldiers. We played on the carpet with measuring sticks, graduating onto tables with metal figures. That's Wargaming to me, and we played TFT the same way; with minis on a felt sheet, using chalk to mark terrain features and an inch marked ruler for distances. We only used hexes for the odd Melee matchup. Counters on a hex map is "Board Wargaming" to me. Not the real thing ��

I started playing wargames in 1967 with Avalon Hill's Afrika Korps; playing with toy soldiers was not "real" wargaming. Just sayin'. ;-)

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by JLV

I started playing wargames in 1967 with Avalon Hill's Afrika Korps; playing with toy soldiers was not "real" wargaming. Just sayin'. ;-)

Tell that to H.G. Wells 😜

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

Tell that to H.G. Wells 😜

Poor old H. G. You could always tell that he felt the lack of a good hexagonal map and counters very strongly. Just look at the pics of him hunched sorrowfully over the toy table... 😜

[Dave Crowell]

A good point has been raised. To some of us, TFT, particularly Melee and Wizard are primarilly wargames. It is nice to have ITL and all that roleplaying stuff, but honestly TFT has never been my primary go to RPG.

If differing time and movement scales are going to be used in the game it would be well to explain them clearly. More so than the usual gaming mix of real world and game world units. Rounds and turns and D&D use of "inches" to mean "ten feet" indoors, "ten yards" outdoors, except when one "inch" really meant one real world "inch".

If all TFT maps are going to be gridded in hexes and the game to be played in turns it becomes a little easier. Place each operational scale of the game in its own section, define what a "hex" and a "turn" represent at that scale and then give all measurements in units of hexes and turns. If the game is consistent in refering to turns and hexes and the mechanics flow smoothly, it doesn't really matter for game play what real world units those turns and hexes correspond to.

Taking TFT hexless, while it can be done, should, imho, be mentioned as an optional rule, not integrated in to the main rules.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Dave Crowell

Taking TFT hexes, while it can be done, should, imho, be mentioned as an optional rule, not integrated in to the main rules.

I'm sorry, but I'm not entirely sure what the sentence above means... Can you explain what you are suggesting here?

It sounded like you were supporting having hexes and turns of varying sizes specifically spelled out in most of your comment, but this last sentence sounds like you are suggesting hexes be done away with entirely except as an optional rule. But that doesn't correlate to the rest of your post, so I'm confused now as to what precisely you are suggesting...

Sorry for any confusion I'm creating! ;-)

[Dave Crowell]

No, you caught me in a typo. I meant taking TFT hexless. I have corrected my post above.

It would be confusing without the correction.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Dave Crowell

No, you caught me in a typo. I meant taking TFT hexless. I have corrected my post above.

It would be confusing without the correction.

Thanks! I appreciate the clarification. I was almost sure that's what you meant, but thought I ought not to jump to any conclusions without asking first! ;-)

Oh, and I absolutely agree with your point.

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

1.33 m/hex with 5 s turns, 4 m/hex with 5 s turns

A minor issue: the distance between two megahex centres isn't three times the distance between hex centres, in fact the ratio is only the square root of 7. (You can calculate this with Pythagoras or just notice that there are 7 hexes in a megahex, answer's the same either way.) So the size of a megahex is about 3.5 metres.

As a consequence: if you're counting hexes instead of megahexes for archery range, and want to impose a penalty of -1 DX every 2 megahexes, it's actually a closer approximation to save -1 DX per 5 hexes than -1 DX per 6 hexes.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

A minor issue: the distance between two megahex centres isn't three times the distance between hex centres, in fact the ratio is only the square root of 7. (You can calculate this with Pythagoras or just notice that there are 7 hexes in a megahex, answer's the same either way.) So the size of a megahex is about 3.5 metres.

As a consequence: if you're counting hexes instead of megahexes for archery range, and want to impose a penalty of -1 DX every 2 megahexes, it's actually a closer approximation to save -1 DX per 5 hexes than -1 DX per 6 hexes.

Or, since I prefer not to perform geometry functions every turn during a game, I can just go with the existing statements in the rules... ;-)