Hex(agon)ed

[pgb]

Originally Posted by tbone

Are you talking about counting square movement as 2 units, diagonals as 3, with ordinary squares? Because you wouldn't do that with staggered squares; movement works the same with staggered squares as with hexes. Staggered squares essentially are hexes. Shaped like squares. : )

You're basically right; certainly the usual "3:2" argument about diagonals of squares doesn't apply. But actually, the distances with staggered squares aren't exactly the same: the "diagonal" moves, between rows, are longer than those within rows by a factor of sqrt(5/4) = 1.12 approx. Really, we should use staggered rectangles, where the spacing between rows is smaller than that along rows by a factor of sqrt(3/4) = 0.866 approx. Then we REALLY have hexes that just look different. These factors are close enough to 1 to not matter for many purposes, but if setting this up from scratch, why not get it spot on?

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by tbone

Are you talking about counting square movement as 2 units, diagonals as 3, with ordinary squares?

Yes. But I did manage to edit that sentence into a really confusing spot while fiddling with the post. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll fix up the mistake.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by pgb

Really, we should use staggered rectangles, where the spacing between rows is smaller than that along rows by a factor of sqrt(3/4) = 0.866 approx. Then we REALLY have hexes that just look different. These factors are close enough to 1 to not matter for many purposes, but if setting this up from scratch, why not get it spot on?

Yep, you're right that hexes and staggered squares (SS) aren't quite the same. Close enough that you can treat SS as hexes for movement purposes with little loss of precision, but there is a difference. (Specifically, for those wondering: If you measure two 1" SS of a column, the height is of course 2"; if you measure the width of two columns, that again is of course 2". With 1" hexes, though, the height of two hexes in a column is 1", but the width of two columns is only about 1.73". Or restated, a 1" hex is 1" high but only about 0.866" wide (average width), as pgb notes.)

As you say, slightly rectangular SS would best match hexes. As for "why not get it spot on", I can only think of one reason: you'd lose the ease of quickly mapping into 3-ft x 3-ft dimensions ("let's see, 15' x 18', that's 5 squares high, 6 columns across"). You'd have to convert locations into 3-ft x 2.6-ft rectangles.

I wouldn't be surprised, though, if someone out there is happily doing just that!

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by johndallman

I have read that when Steve Jackson was doing the original design work for GURPS. he spent considerable time trying to make tactical combat work on a square grid, but was unable to find a way to do it that satisfied him.

There is an article (that predate Gurps by several years) by Steve Jackson in Space Gamer 30 that briefly discuss hex vs square for tactical maps and movement.
He clearly favor the hex grid, for many reasons, but agree that square grid are better for right-angled floor plans.

[RedMattis]

Originally Posted by Celjabba

[...] square grid are better for right-angled floor plans.

Indeed. Hexes can be a bit frustrating if you're using a virtual tabletop engine or grabbing maps made for D&D or something. On the flip side Hexes are generally easier to work with when the environment isn't perfectly aligned. (f.ex. if using real maps or maps not specifically made for tabletop RPGs).

I personally prefer hexes though, I find movement gets more tactical, and it is easier to block someone's advance without opportunity-attack rules and such.

[Farmer]

I think the whole "it doesn't line up" comes from drawing dungeons on grid paper (I certainly did back in the 80s). I'm not sure why it matters at all, though, to have some walls or objects that aren't perfectly aligned to a grid, so I don't see this as a draw back to hexes at all.

[maximara]

For most a hex is that 1 yard across from one side to the other through the center (2 x apothem) the corner to corner through the center (long diagonal) is 1.1547 yards.

By contrast a square 1 yard across from one side to the other through the center is 1.41421 yards long on the diagonal.

So you can see a hex is more useful if you are using yards or meters along a diagonal than a square as the distance drifts far faster with a square grid.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Farmer

I think the whole "it doesn't line up" comes from drawing dungeons on grid paper (I certainly did back in the 80s). I'm not sure why it matters at all, though, to have some walls or objects that aren't perfectly aligned to a grid, so I don't see this as a draw back to hexes at all.

And note that you can draw straight lines on hexgrids just fine. Draw vertex to vertex.

[Lovewyrm]

Having finally done some tinkering with maps, myself.
I initially loathed the square map awkwardness, but quickly warmed up to the hexes well enough.
(I like them in videogames a lot, but there landscape is usually aligned to it)

The only thing I still find awkward is straight constructs with only one tile gaps.
Imagine a ramp that leads on a 1 hex wide catwalk, with 1 hex space at the side, and then on both sides hazardous terrain.
It can get a bit unclear when someone is standing on the catwalk on a shared '2 hex' spot, and others next to it.

But the system still works out, it's just awkward, but if for the most part, the entire thing is very much quite playable.

Plus, it's just an abstraction, right? So...a little bit of bookkeeping for some small edge cases is fine.
"You're still on the beam, the monster is still on the ground, and also not in the sand pit, despite the overlap"

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by FeiLin

My primary concerns are that a) most room walls line up in varying degrees of ugliness regardless of grid rotation and related issues,

That doesn’t have to be a big deal. (Caverns, and anything else non-square, have that problem with squares, so whatever grid you use you probably need to solve the issue, and once you have a solution – like “any partial space is a full space” or “anything more than half a space is a full space” or whatever, you’re set.)

b) movement/facing restricted except in six directions,

If you want, its not hard to generalize it so that you can do half-side facing and, without obstructions, movement. I don’t think the extra freedom buys you enough to be worth the added complexity, but its doable if you really find six directions confining.

and c) figure shapes wider than one tend to be unpractical and/or plain weird.

If they aren’t explicitly rectangular, hex grids are at least as good as square grids here. They are a little worse for rectangular figures, but better for figures representing circular or oval shapes.

For the life of me I cannot figure out how to handle a shape that’s only slightly bigger than one hex?

There are shapes that are somewhat awkward, but in the “just bigger than one hex” neighborhood, hex grids handle 2x1, 3-around-a-corner, and 4-touching-a-hex-side.

A shape that’s ”3x2” hexes, how does that look???

3x2 hexes isn’t a great layout for a figure. For figures where 3x2 is the best approximation on a square grid, its likely the best approximation that works well with novement and facing on a hex grid is 4-around-a-hex-side or a 1-hex-radius ring.