Running on a grid as opposed to hexes

[RogerBW]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

why can't you move along the splines onto destination hexes that don't share a side with with the origin hex?

Heh. In Air Superiority (and its derivatives Air Strike and The Speed of Heat), you could move onto hexsides. 12 movement directions on the hex grid, and if you moved forward when pointing at a hex corner you moved onto the adjacent edge. (If you turned when on an edge, you fell into the hex in the direction of the turn.)

It played reasonably well. Whether it was worth the extra complication...

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Corlock Striker

Diagonal squares are touching in that they share a corner. A hex only shares sides and corners with the six hexes that share it's sides.

If diagonal squares with no common sides are considered touching because they share a corner, why can't hexes with no common sides be considered touching because they share a spline?

[Corlock Striker]

Because at least one point, the intersection of the lines that make the corner, is shared between the squares. As the shared spline is a line, there is no shared point between the hexes connected by that spline.

[Gizensha]

Originally Posted by JMD

That is an interesting question, and my only response can be to cite that historically, in not only table top RPG's but also in most board games, you can move diagonally. But that is correct, there is no reason to allow the players to move diagonally, except for the sake of realism (do you move in routes with perfect 90 degree turns at all times?)

Realism... Sure, if you don't mind either the complication of movements requiring tracking 1.4 'moves' as well as 1 'move', or working in a universe where Pythagoras theorem is a = cap(b | c)

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Corlock Striker

Because at least one point, the intersection of the lines that make the corner, is shared between the squares. As the shared spline is a line, there is no shared point between the hexes connected by that spline.

What makes that particular geometric abstraction (the zero width shared point) sufficient for modeling the continuous movement of three-dimensional objects?

[Corlock Striker]

You just answered your own question.

[JMD]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

Just as often as I move along routes with only perfect 45, 90, and 135 degree turns.

Exactly, the fastest route is in a straight line. Allowing diagonals at the very least helps the simulation of that and is more accurate then disallowing it.

[davidtmoore]

Actually, square grids perfectly model reality. I find, myself, that when running north-east, south-east, north-west or south-west I run exactly 41% faster than when running due north, east, west or south. It's eerie. Did you know that all race-tracks are built perfectly north-south or east-west? Did you never wonder why?

[JMD]

Originally Posted by davidtmoore

Actually, square grids perfectly model reality. I find, myself, that when running north-east, south-east, north-west or south-west I run exactly 41% faster than when running due north, east, west or south. It's eerie. Did you know that all race-tracks are built perfectly north-south or east-west? Did you never wonder why?

Never knew that. Not sure if there is a scientific basis for that. Also, who's to say that moving diagonally on a grid means that you are going in one of those magical directions? The Gm might rule that the top right of the map is North, now all of a sudden you are moving faster in the cardinal directions. It doesn't make consistent sense, even with your supposition that beings move faster in ordinals.

[davidtmoore]

Originally Posted by JMD

Never knew that. Not sure if there is a scientific basis for that. Also, who's to say that moving diagonally on a grid means that you are going in one of those magical directions? The Gm might rule that the top right of the map is North, now all of a sudden you are moving faster in the cardinal directions. It doesn't make consistent sense, even with your supposition that beings move faster in ordinals.

Nonsense! All maps point North! It's to model this peculiarity of physics...

...I can't do it. Square grids are easier to use, but make less sense. To be fair, hex grids aren't perfect. I use the ruler method myself; best way.