Hex facing and half-turns

[FeiLin]

This problem arose during tactical combat, when players wanted to use facing in formation to present a solid line to the enemy to avoid being hit from the side. It works well enough when combat and formations line up with the hex grid, but as soon as the battle is underway, it became near impossible to cover all flanks, even though they were simply trying to stand in one line. It became an issue when characters kept being hit from a side hex, even though they took extra care to keep their enemies in front of them.

The first issue was I'm not entirely sure how to extrapolate the facings beyond "the first ring" on B388. Specifically, I'm not sure exactly where the line between side and back should be drawn. The front facing I guess would extend along the same lines. Combining with the diagram on B389, it would make sense to make back hexes the same arc as front, only one row of hexes less on each side (so the there's only one back hex adjacent to the character as opposed to three front).

Another thing I was contemplating was using "half-facings" (i.e. facing a corner of one's hex, rather than a side) and where to draw the same lines between front/side and side/back for half-facings. Extrapolating from the standard facing diagram, one can draw an "X" shape with the top and bottom (i.e. front and back, respectively) 120 degrees and each side 60 degrees, centered on the line facing the back hex. If the same "X" is laid over a "half facing hex" but with the center slightly shifted towards the center of the character's hex, a similar pattern emerges. This produces slightly more back hexes than front hexes (the price for being obnoxious about facing) including only two front hexes but two back hexes in the first ring, as well as the same amount of side hexes.

I'll link to two diagrams that show what I mean (let me know if they don't work):
https://www.imgurl.me/image/gr9Ew
https://www.imgurl.me/image/grJh6

As a "bonus", this allows for straight movement along the line between two hexes to the hex beyond (so rotated 90 degrees from regular movement) for two movement points (or 1.7-something, approximately seven eighths, should it matter). This means characters moving in this direction wont have to move as though they just stumbled out of the bar in the middle of the night.

Any thoughts on this? Any reasons we shouldn't be using half hexes? We're trying to have combat with tactical depth as much as possible, and might make compromises regarding accuracy or fairness.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by FeiLin

I'm not entirely sure how to extrapolate the facings beyond "the first ring" on B388. Specifically, I'm not sure exactly where the line between side and back should be drawn. The front facing I guess would extend along the same lines. Combining with the diagram on B389, it would make sense to make back hexes the same arc as front, only one row of hexes less on each side (so the there's only one back hex adjacent to the character as opposed to three front).

388 definitely could've benefitted from some more extensive labelling, like they leave blank the same-level hexes (what I would term the "true left" and "true right" hexes which aren't directly adjacent) so it's not clear how to classify them, while 389 makes it clear those count as front hexes and that a hex must be "lower" (in terms of "forward is up" illustrations) to count as a side hex.

I think the best way to distinguish between the side hexes and the rear ones is that the barrier for the side hexes is when you draw a line between the midpoint of your hex and the midpoint of your side hexes.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by FeiLin

This problem arose during tactical combat, when players wanted to use facing in formation to present a solid line to the enemy to avoid being hit from the side. It works well enough when combat and formations line up with the hex grid, but as soon as the battle is underway, it became near impossible to cover all flanks, even though they were simply trying to stand in one line. It became an issue when characters kept being hit from a side hex, even though they took extra care to keep their enemies in front of them.

Can you explain how this is happening? Normal characters have three faces of front out of six. I don't see how you'd arrange a line that needed more than that?

I can see how, depending on how you interpret things, a character who forms a salient might be subject to side attacks from reach 2+ weapons, I guess. But a half-facing wouldn't solve that.

[Dinadon]

You're misunderstanding what the diagram on B388 is telling you. It is simply saying where the weapon can [I]attack[/l]. It has no impact on facing as defined on B385, and certainly not with respect to defenses. Defenses are based on your vision, or in other words, simply extend the boundaries for facing indefinitely.

While a hex grid makes it awkward for a line to be level, that's just an artefact of the game mechanics so don't get hung up on it. A character has three front hexes, a half hex facing means that you have two whole hexes and two half hexes at the front, which is unnecessarily complicated. Or just don't use hexes.

EDIT: And it only takes two movements anyway to move to any hex in your forward facing

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Dinadon

Or just don't use hexes.

That's my favorite fix. Even if using minis (which I usually don't), I think the issues caused by hexes outweigh their benefits.

And this from someone who has seriously considered converting GURPS Spaceships to trapezo-rhombic dodecahedral honeycomb mapping.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by FeiLin

It works well enough when combat and formations line up with the hex grid, but as soon as the battle is underway, it became near impossible to cover all flanks, even though they were simply trying to stand in one line. It became an issue when characters kept being hit from a side hex, even though they took extra care to keep their enemies in front of them.

This is realistic. It's very easy to get killed by a 2 or 3-hex Reach weapons attacking to your side if you're the end-most person in a shield wall. It's also easy to get flanked. Attacking from the sides is one good way to crack such a wall.

The solutions are to arrange your people in a "V" or "C" shape, circle, or square.

Use the V formation (with the bottom of the pointed towards at the enemy) if you've got heavily armed and armored people in the front and you're trying to move forward or crack the enemy's shield wall. The Vikings called this formation "the boar's snout."

Use the C formation (with the back of the C facing the enemy) if you need a broader formation or if you've got more heavily armed and armored front-line fighters. Put less well armed and armored folks on the flanks, preferably with 2,3-hex reach weapons or ranged weapons to deter flankers.

Alternately, use a "[" shape with the people right behind the lines at the end of the bracket facing to the side, armed with 2,3-hex reach weapons, and tasked with the job of eliminating flankers. They should be far enough behind the lines that they can't get hit by the enemy's polearms.

Circle or square formations, with everyone facing outward, are good for holding ground or protecting non-combatants or wounded in the center of the formation. Ideally, people on the front lines are backed by a second line of fighters armed with polearms with the job of attacking foes who are attempting to attack the front-line rank from the side.

Originally Posted by FeiLin

The first issue was I'm not entirely sure how to extrapolate the facings beyond "the first ring" on B388.

Use the diagram on p. B389 to extend the diagram on p. B388.

Anything in the white area, even if it's technically behind the arc which describes your Front hexes, counts as a Front hex. Anything in the gray area counts as a Side hex. Anything in the Black area counts as a rear attack.

It's a bit counterintuitive that you can strike into every other hex along the line between your Side and Front hexes, but that's the limitation of hex grids.

Originally Posted by FeiLin

Another thing I was contemplating was using "half-facings" (i.e. facing a corner of one's hex, rather than a side) and where to draw the same lines between front/side and side/back for half-facings.

This sounds like extra work, but it it's not unrealistic since most people suffer from some degree of "target fixation" or tunnel vision in combat. It could be a viable option, although reducing front hexes to 2 might annoy players who are used to the standard system.

Playtest it and see how well it works.

Originally Posted by FeiLin

Any thoughts on this? Any reasons we shouldn't be using half hexes? We're trying to have combat with tactical depth as much as possible, and might make compromises regarding accuracy or fairness.

By default, GURPS embraces the philosophy of "heroic realism" rather than simulation and official policy appears to be to reject new rules if they're too complex or if existing mechanics cover a particular situation "well enough."

That said, it' not hard to turn GURPS into a combat simulator if everyone is willing to accept the extra work and rules involved.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Use the C formation (with the back of the C facing the enemy) if you need a broader formation

I figured with a shield wall you would always have the tips curve outwards (to the front-left or front-right, not necessarily as extreme as back-left or back-right) if enemies were close enough to attack from the side.

Another idea is to allow semi-Waits where if you don't use your free facing change (or step!) during your turn you can hold it and use it during someone else's turn up until your next one starts.

[FeiLin]

Originally Posted by Dinadon

You're misunderstanding what the diagram on B388 is telling you

Ohhhh, that makes more sense. Yeah, I can see how that’s what they meant, while I interpreted it as melee and ranged rules it was more attack and defense rules.

Hopefully these updated diagrams are more accurate:
https://www.imgurl.me/image/gOn1F
https://www.imgurl.me/image/gOUD8

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

By default, GURPS embraces the philosophy of "heroic realism" rather than simulation and official policy appears to be to reject new rules if they're too complex or if existing mechanics cover a particular situation "well enough."

That said, it' not hard to turn GURPS into a combat simulator if everyone is willing to accept the extra work and rules involved.

I’m somewhat undecided in this. On the one hand, I come from miniature heavy RPGs and board games, so miniature feel intuitive and useful, especially given the tactical depth that GURPS potentially offers. On the other hand, GURPS may not be that out of the box and needs revising what rules to use and not, and what to tweak.

Basically, the goal is to create something of a tactical mini puzzle focused around the combat side of the PCs, almost like a squad based miniature game, but where the story sets the “point limits” for the two sides, as well as the map/scenario.

A secondary aspiration is to build that in to other GURPS rules, so that the combat may be varying degrees of cinematic, but the recovery and in between scenes are more realistic (with regards too recovery, etc).

Any advice how to achieve that?

[bocephus]

Originally Posted by FeiLin

Ohhhh, that makes more sense. Yeah, I can see how that’s what they meant, while I interpreted it as melee and ranged rules it was more attack and defense rules.

Hopefully these updated diagrams are more accurate:
https://www.imgurl.me/image/gOn1F
https://www.imgurl.me/image/gOUD8

Any advice how to achieve that?

Your First diagram (ends in n1F) is how I would interpret classic "facing", but I would pull the front facing line fully back to the points of the hex. I would also point out that your Blue View angle while more realistic is an additional layer to the GURPS RAW where it AND your White areas are considered part of "Forward facing".

Your second diagram (ends in UD8) I would alter it by pulling the front facing line back to the mid point of the hex. This is one of those issues using a HEX grid map board, because you end up with a much larger SIDE space than orienting the hex per the first diagram.

This also makes the cost of Peripheral Vision's [15] make more sense because it gives "240 degrees of view". See the picture on B74 that accompanies the text for the advantage. The oddness of SIDE attacks isn't the definition of the combat system, its the issue of using a HEX map, not just hex based minis on an open terrain board.

Your Blue limitation, mechanics wise, probably represents a Disadvantage Restricted Vision B151 with accompanying diagrams. I could be persuaded to allow a -5 point version of Narrow Vision that increases the SIDE without increasing a BACK or adding the limitation that you lose SIDE all together. Essentially that's what you are showing with the additional blue color overlay, all the white in your first diagram would become SIDE instead of FRONT. However if it will simply be a Home brew rule, then someone wanting the classic 180degree view might need to pay [5] at your table.

In both these situations my interpretation is that the hex is not a representation of the HEAD and its view, its a representation of the entire body facing. Thus the vision is coming from the center or IMO slightly rear of center in the hex where the head is located, when someone takes a posture to 'go to work'.

I will also say that this is a level of detail that *I* don't use. I give the PC the benefit of the doubt generally, preferring to be less 'realistic' and lean toward cinematic. If such granularity is called for don't forget how Helms, Shields, neighbors, and other factors (weather, reflected light, smoke, fire, dark, sun etc) can effect vision.

[Anaraxes]

Perhaps worth remembering that characters don't have their head rigidly affixed to their body, nor their eyes glued always to face forward. GURPS assumes that characters are always moving within their hex, including turning their whole body (for rules like Run-around Attacks); scanning your surroundings is even just a "free action", it's assumed to always be happening. So, it's probably better to err on the generous side of the arc, whatever you think that arc might be.

Just sitting at my computer and fixating on the monitor, I can tell I have easily 180 degrees of peripheral vision. If I actually turn my head, there's a little sliver behind me I can't see without rotating my torso, but it's not even 30 degrees across. (Width of a chair about 8 feet behind me; feel free to do the trig.) The 120 degree blue arc is perhaps the area where both eyes overlap. Maybe you want to get into depth perception issues outside that arc -- though stereopsis isn't the only or even the most important depth cue.